The Russian parliamentary elections went smooth as a silk dress under the hand. The ruling party, United Russia, has got a big majority of the seats in the Parliament, while the other three parties, the Communists (CPRF), the Nationalists and the Socialists shared the rest. Pro-Western parties did not cross the threshold and remained outside, as before.

The turnout had been low. The official figure pointed to a respectable 48%, but reports in real time indicated it was much lower than that. The last real time figures stood at 20% for Moscow and 16% for St Petersburg. These numbers started to climb inexplicably after 5 pm, and Eduard Limonov, a known writer and a keen observer of the political scene, remained convinced that the turnout had been artificially “improved”.
The new election system (a peculiar combination of majoritarian and proportional systems) had been biased for the benefit of the ruling party. It is hard to say whether the Russian elections were rigged, and if so, to what extent. Surely, if any party can complain about being cheated, it was the communists, not the pro-Western nationalists and liberals. Despite what you perhaps have heard, the Communists present the only real alternative to Putin’s regime, as the pro-Western parties are tiny and exceedingly unpopular. The Communists (as well as the other two parties) are Putin-friendly; they support Putin’s foreign policy, and they would support a more active policy as well. They heartily approved of Crimea’s return to Russian fold, and they spoke in favour of military intervention in the Ukraine.
Putin is the most moderate Russian politician acceptable to the public; every viable democratic alternative would be more radical, and more pro-Communist or Nationalist. All Russian politicians above a certain age were Communist Party members; the Socialists (Fair Russia) is a splinter of the Communist Party established by the Kremlin in order to undermine the CPRF.
In these elections, two alternative Communist Parties has been set up by the Kremlin, and many Russians voted for them mistakenly thinking they were voting for the Communists. If Russian political tricksters were to run Clinton’s campaign, they would flood the ballots with dozens of Trumps hoping that many Trump voters would make a mistake and vote for the wrong Trump.
While agreeing with and supporting Putin’s foreign policy, the Communists, the Socialists and a sizeable minority of the ruling United Russia party disagree with Putin’s liberal economic and financial policies. They would like to suppress the oligarchs, to introduce currency controls, to re-nationalise privatised industries and to strengthen the social state. But they can’t do it: even if they were to gain a clear majority in the elections, Putin would still be entitled to ask, say, liberal Medvedev or arch-liberal Kudrin to form a government.
The problem is that the Russian Parliament’s powers are extremely limited. The constitution was written by the Russian liberals and their American advisers to prevent Russians from ever regaining their assets massively stripped by a few Jewish businessmen. The constitution gave the president a Tsar’s clout, and minimised the powers of Parliament. It was imposed on Russia in 1993, after the previous Parliament impeached then-president Yeltsin; instead of fading away gently, he had sent tanks and shelled the Parliament. Its defenders went to jail; Yeltsin rammed through the new constitution, and it was inherited by Putin.
Our friend the Saker said “These elections were a huge personal victory for Vladimir Putin”. But is it true? The United Russia includes people of widely differing opinions, from pro-Western privatisers to closet communists. Their common platform is their adherence to power. They are equally likely to support Putin or to condemn and impeach Putin. They are similar to the Regions’ Party that ruled Ukraine in the days of President Yanukovych, or to the Soviet Communist Party in the days of Gorbachev. In the time of trouble, they will run away and desert their president.
Putin might get a much better grip on power if he were to allow more freedom and democracy, thereby getting more convicted supporters, real Putinists, instead of careerists. However, Putin prefers pliable careerists. We shall see whether he will have a reason to regret it, as Yanukovych had.
It is not much democracy, you might say, if an impotent parliament is packed by faceless yes-men. Parliament is not a place for discussion, famously said Boris Gryzlov, a United Russia leader and the Parliament Speaker. «It is not a place for political struggle, for ideological battles; it is a place for constructive law-making”, he added. Russian freedom of speech (almost unlimited) is totally disengaged from action, and this is frustrating. Even demonstrations are limited and can lead to arrest. In Gryzlov’s words, “Streets aren’t for political actions and protests, but for festivities”.
If this is the function of parliament, who cares about it? Who can blame the majority of Russian voters for staying away from the city in their countryside villas (“dachas”) in the midst of the glorious Indian summer?
What’s worse, there are fewer and fewer reasons for people to bother to vote, in any country. In Europe, the difference between the parties has practically vanished.
Consider France: what’s the difference between Sarkozy the rightist and Hollande the leftist? Nothing whatsoever. The first blasted Libya and integrated France in NATO, the second wants to blast Syria and fulfils all American orders. There is no difference between parties in Sweden, either. All are for accepting a billion refugees, for condemning racists in their midst, for integrating in NATO and for foaming about the Russian threat. What is the difference between Cameron the Tory and Blair the Labour? Nothing. NATO, bombs, tax breaks for the rich are for both.
The parliaments and people mean very little now in Europe – as little as in Russia. The British people voted for Brexit. Fine! So did it happen? Not at all. The new unelected government of Theresa May just pushed the decision far away into the heap of not-very-urgent business correspondence next to requesting assignment of a budget to a Zoo. Maybe she will deliver it to Brussels in a year or two. Or people will forget about that vote.
In a few months, Mrs May will say as Stephen Daedalus said when asked will he repay the pound he borrowed: “Five months. The molecules all changed. I am an other I now. The other I got the pound.” The other England voted for Brexit, the molecules have all changed. Let us re-vote, or even better just forget it.
Many people I spoke to already repeat, word-perfect, the new post-Brexit-vote mantra: “Only retired old folk and unemployed racists voted for Brexit.” Mrs Clinton provided the name for them: The Deplorables. This American name for perspective Trump voters fits the Brexit voters like a glove. A Deplorable is a person who does not subscribe to the ruling neo-liberal paradigm and its twin sister, identity politics.
Clinton spoke of deplorables at her meeting with the rich perverts of Wall Street, at a hundred thousand dollar a seat. Breaking the banks or providing jobs will not help you, the holy LGBT victims of white male persecution, she said. Sure, but it will help us, the working people. We do not care for unisex lavatories, we do not obsess about female CEOs. We have other worries: how to get a secure job and a decent house and provide for our children. This makes us deplorable in the eyes of rich perverts.
A new generation of parties has sprung up in Europe: the parties of the Deplorables. In Sweden, until now, a Swedish Democrats party, the only party speaking against NATO, against the EU, against the intake of migrants had been excluded from public debate. Two main parties, the Right and the Left, forgot about their long animosity and made a government together, just to keep the SD out, because they are deplorables. The result was paradoxical: more people have moved to support the deplorable party.
French FN or Marine Le Pen is another party of Deplorables. She wants to take France out of EU and out of NATO, and to keep the migrating waves out. The Left and the Right would rather submit to Saudi Arabia and transfer the power to sheikhs than to allow the Deplorables to win, mused Houellebecq in his Submission.
The Deplorable Jeremy Corbyn was almost removed from his chairmanship of the Labour party by the Labour MPs. The MPs preferred to keep their party as a clone of the Conservatives and to leave the electorate without a real choice. But Corbyn fights, and hopefully he will keep his party and proceed to victory.
More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century.
Russia with its very limited democracy is still better off: their nobility of discourse polled less than three per cent of the votes in the last elections, though they are still heavily represented in the government.
The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump, is hated by the political establishment, by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are hated.
The Huffington Post published the following “Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.”
A man so hated by enemies of democracy is one who deserves our support. When the revolution comes, whoever says “xenophobe, racist, misogynist” to his brother will be lined up against the wall and shot. So it probably won’t be Sanders’ revolution.
I am worried that his enemies will not allow Trump’s inauguration: they will say Putin hacked the voting machines, and send the case to the Supreme Court; or perhaps they will try to assassinate him. But first, let him win.
It is difficult to predict the consequences of his victory. Newsweek noted (while discussing the US aid to Israel): “A Trump victory would introduce a level of uncertainty into the world that Israel fears. Nobody has any idea what Trump might do as president and that is something new in international relations.”
This already sounds enticing enough. Israel fears democracy, fears peace in the Middle East, fears US disobedience, fears the Jews will lose their reserved places at the first class saloon on the upper deck, in the editor’s rooms and the bank manager’s. Let them tremble.
The consequences of Trump’s victory will be far-reaching. Our belief in democracy will be restored. NATO will shrink, money will go to repair the US infrastructure instead of bombing Syria and Libya. Americans will be loved again.
The consequences of Clinton’s victory will be as short-lived as we are, for she will deliver us the living hell of a nuclear war, and eternal dictatorship of the Iron Heel.
This election is like a red pill/blue pill choice given to you. “You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” Providentially, we know what colour stands for Trump, and what for Clinton.
Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

RT
Mon, 03 Oct 2016 08:23 UTC
Map
Russia has suspended a post-Cold War deal with the US on disposal of plutonium from decommissioned nuclear warheads. The decision was explained by "the hostile actions of the US" against Russia and Washington's failure to observe the terms of the deal. A decree signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin cites "the radical change in the environment, a threat to strategic stability posed by the hostile actions of the US against Russia, and the inability of the US to deliver on the obligation to dispose of excessive weapons plutonium under international treaties, as well as the need to take swift action to defend Russian security" as justification for suspending the deal.

The development was not entirely surprising, since Russia earlier expressed its dissatisfaction with how the US wants to handle plutonium disposal. Washington decided it would be cheaper to mix nuclear materials with special additives. Russia insisted that the US was violating the terms of the deal, which required it to use a nuclear reactor to transmute plutonium. Unlike the mixing technology, the latter method makes the process irreversible.

While Russia suspended the plutonium reprocessing deal, it stressed that the Russian fissile material, which was subject to it, would not be used for any military purpose, be it production of new weapons or research. The suspension decree has come into force, but it needs to be approved by the Russian parliament, which may overrule the president's decision. Leonid Slutsky, who's slated to be appointed head of the Foreign Relations Committee in the newly-elected parliament, said it would be given a priority.

"It's a very important issue. It's about taking swift action to protect Russian national security. We will deal with it as soon as the bill is submitted," he told TASS. A bill submitted by the president's office to the parliament on Monday states that the uranium agreement may be resumed, provided the US takes steps to eliminate the causes of the suspension. In particular, Moscow wants Washington to curb its military presence on the territories of NATO members which have joined the alliance after September 1, 2000, to the number at which they were at the moment of signing the agreement, Russian media report.

The draft bill also mentions repeal of the so-called Magnitsky law and of sanctions against Russian regions, persons and companies introduced by the US over Ukrainian crisis, while also paying compensation for damages caused by them, including the damages caused by the counter-sanctions that Russia was forced to impose. The Magnitsky Act is a 2012 US law intended to punish a number of Russian citizens believed to be linked to the death in custody of Russian lawyer Sergey Magnitsky. Moscow also wants Washington to provide a clear plan how it is going to irreversibly reprocess plutonium under the agreement's conditions.

The treaty between the US and Russia, which regulates how the two countries are to dispose of plutonium from nuclear warheads decommissioned as part of the parallel reduction of the two countries' Cold War arsenals, was signed in 2000. Each country was required to dispose of over 34 tons of fissile material by turning it into so-called MOX fuel and burning it in nuclear reactors. However, costs for building a facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, where the US was supposed to fabricate MOX fuel from its plutonium, spiraled out of control. Under the Obama administration, the US decided that it would instead use the cheaper reversible process, arguing that it was in line with the spirit of the deal with Russia.

PUTIN warns U.S. about the NEW WORLD ORDER 2016!! All need to see this!! (Please Share with urgency)
@admtrainee - &quot;The Truth Is Out There&quot;
@admtrainee - "The Truth Is Out There"
61,347 456,010 views
Published on Jul 26, 2016

The huge four-day “civil defence” drill has set alarm bells ringing in Washington and London, with tensions already high over disagreements in Syria.

Following a breakdown in communication between the USA and Russia, the Kremlin has now organised the huge emergency practice drill - either as a show of force or something more sinister.

The drill will prepare Russian citizens for “large natural and man-made disasters”, according to the country’s Ministery for Civil Defence, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disaster.

Vladimir Putin has sparked concern with a mass evacuation drill
RELATED ARTICLES
'Keep Russia Russian!' Putin moves to OUTLAW ‘alien values in laws'
DEXIT? EU is ‘BIGGER THREAT than Russia’, warns Danish MP
The ministry revealed 40 million civilians, 200,000 emergency rescuers and 50,000 units of equipment are involved in the war game, which is running from October 4 to October 7.

Russia evacuationRUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
Emergency responders taking part in this week's drill
A spokesman said in a statement: “The main goal of the drill is to practice organisation of management during civil defence events and emergency and fire management, to check preparedness of management bodies and forces of civil defence on all levels to respond to natural and man-made disasters and to take civil defence measures.”

They explained the scheme would be divided into three stages: awareness, planning and evacuation.

MAPPED: The world's nuclear powers and the UNOFFICIAL nuclear threats

Inside the Russian Army
Sat, August 6, 2016
A look inside the powerful Russian Army

PLAY SLIDESHOW
A woman walks past a Russian military personnel carrier outside a Ukrainian military baseGETTY IMAGES1 of 19
A woman walks past a Russian military personnel carrier outside a Ukrainian military base
A woman walks past a Russian military personnel carrier outside a Ukrainian military base
Russia's servicemen perform during the opening ceremony for the Maintenance Battalion competition among maintenance units in the village of Cheryomushki
Russia's servicemen perform during the opening ceremony for the Maintenance Battalion competition among maintenance units
Russia's team competes in the Individual race event of the Maintenance Battalion competition among maintenance units in the village of Cheryomushki
An MTO-UB1 repair complex of China's team in the Individual race event of the Maintenance Battalion competition
Russian tanks leave the Red square during the rehearsal general for the Victory Day military parade
A reconnaissance group serviceman during assault crossing exercises held by a motorized rifle brigade and engineer units
Venezuela's serviceman on a BTR-82a armoured personnel carrier in the Pursuit race, Stage 3 of the Seaborne Assault competition among marine units
Venezuela's serviceman on a BTR-82a armoured personnel carrier in the Pursuit race, Stage 3 of the Seaborne Assault competition among marine units
A BMP-2 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle during assault crossing exercises held by a motorized rifle brigade
Victory Day parade rehearsal at the Red Square
Victory Day parade rehearsal at the Red Square
Victory Day parade rehearsal at the Red Square
Victory Day parade rehearsal at the Red Square
Victory Day parade rehearsal at the Red Square
Soldiers who were among several hundred that took up positions around a Ukrainian military base stand near the base's periphery in Crimea
Russian military troops take part in a military drill on Sernovodsky polygon close to the Chechnya border
Russian tanks drive along a road outside the town of Karaleti, a village near the Russian-controlled buffer zone
A column of Russian armoured vehicles drives in the direction of Gori on the Gori-Tbilisi road
The statement said: “The drill will rehearse radiation, chemical and biological protection of the personnel and population during emergencies at crucial and potentially dangerous facilities.

“Fire safety, civil defence and human protection at social institutions and public buildings are also planned to be checked. Response units will deploy radiation, chemical and biological monitoring centres and sanitation posts at the emergency areas, while laboratory control networks are going to be put on standby.”

Russia evacuationGETTY
Mr Putin's scheme involves the movement of 40m civilians and 200,000 emergency responders
Russia evacuationGETTY
Relations between Russia and the USA have broken down due to disagreements over Syria
Last week, the US condemned Russia’s actions in Syria, which it said were leading to death and destruction.

A spokesman for the US State Department said: “Extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which could include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and will continue to lose resources, perhaps even aircraft.”

PLAY SLIDESHOW
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends an ice hockey matchGETTY IMAGES1 of 46
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends an ice hockey match
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends an ice hockey match
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends an ice hockey match of the Night Hockey League in Sochi, Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin (C), former NHL players Pavel Bure (R) and Slava Fetisov (L) seen during the match
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends an ice hockey match
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends an ice hockey match
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends an ice hockey match of the Night Hockey League in Sochi
Russian President Vladimir Putin Awards Scientists
Russian President Vladimir Putin Attends Defender Of The Fatherland Day Service
Russian President Vladimir Putin Attends Meeting in Moscow
Vladimir Putin practices Judo
Vladimir Putin practices with Russian Judo team
F1 Sochi Lewis Hamilton Vladimir Putin
Russian President Putin winners podium Lewis Hamilton Sochi
Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulates Britain's Lewis Hamilton
Russian President Vladimir Putin applauds Lewis Hamilton
Vladimir Putin attends ice hockey match of the Night Hockey League
Vladimir Putin ice skating during the Night Hockey League in Sochi Russia
Vladimir Putin holds a trophy at the night hockey league in Sochi
Vladimir Putin group photo
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin feeds a horse during his vacation in the Republic of Tyva, Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin submarine trip
Russian President Vladimir Putin submarine
Russian President Putin attends his annual end-of-year news conference in Moscow
Russin President Vladimir Putin dogs
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin swims while traveling in the mountains of the Siberian Tyva
Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (foreground L) takes part in a judo training session at the
Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton of Britain gestures on the podium after winning as Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, applauds on the podium during the Formula One Russian Grand Prix
Russian President Putin meets with women to congratulate them on International Women's Day at the Kremlin in Moscow
Russian President Vladimir Putin
The Queen receives the President-elect of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, at Windsor Castle in 2000
Russian President Vladimir Putin armwrestles with local Yulia Beganova during celebrations of the Tatar national holiday Sabantui in Kazan
Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) shakes hands with US President Barack Obama (R), while welcoming participants arriving for the first working session of G20 summit in St. Petersburg in 2013
Russian President Putin addresses during a joint news conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Orban in Budapest
Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, left, and the commander of the Western Military District Anatoly Sidorov, right, walk upon arrival to watch military exercise near St.Petersburg
Russia's President Vladimir Putin, Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, US President Barack Obama stand for the 'family' group photograph at the G8 venue of Lough Erne in 2013
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, center, sings during a charity concert in St. Petersburg, Russia in 2010
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, center, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, right, and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi pose while examining a new Russian passenger plane the Sukhoi Superjet 100
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin rides a horse during his vacation outside the town of Kyzyl in Southern Siberia
Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair holds a bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G8 Summit in Germany in 2007
US President George W. Bush (L) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (R), both wearing a Vietnamese 'ao dai' silk tunic in Vietnam
Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, front third right, and the Duke of Edinburgh, front second left, sit for a group photo with G8 leaders at the Gleneagles Hotel, near Auchterarder, Scotland in 2005
Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, and U.S. President George W. Bush, donning traditional Chinese silk coats in Shanghai
President Vladimir Putin, wearing a blue helmet and an oxygen mask, sits in Su-27 fighter jet after his flight into the war zone in Chechnya in 2000
US President Bill Clinton (R) appears with Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) in a bilateral meeting at the Assara Guest House in 2000
Tony Blair with Russian President Vladimir Putin outside Number 10 Downing Street in 2000
Russian President Vladimir Putin executes a throw on a Japanese Judo student during a visit to a Sports Center in Gushikawa, Okinawa
Relationships between the two superstates has now broken down completely, and this latest show of power by Mr Putin is likely to be welcomed by his American counterparts._________________www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.orgwww.rethink911.orgwww.patriotsquestion911.comwww.actorsandartistsfor911truth.orgwww.mediafor911truth.orgwww.pilotsfor911truth.orgwww.mp911truth.orgwww.ae911truth.orgwww.rl911truth.orgwww.stj911.orgwww.v911t.orgwww.thisweek.org.ukwww.abolishwar.org.ukwww.elementary.org.ukwww.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

This is 'today's' Guardian (1st November 2016); yet when I tried to add a comment at 09:00 today (1st November) I found the comments were closed. The earliest post was 11 hours previously (22:00 31st October); there were already 1862 comments, and the 'Comments' section had been closed at 02:00 today (1st November)!!
The Guardian certainly 'don't like it up 'em'! What a charade!_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Nato puts 300,000 troops on ‘HIGH ALERT’ amid fears of all out confrontation with Russia
NATO is said to be preparing a military force of up to 300,000 personnel, capable of being deployed within just two months, in response to growing tensions between the West and Russia.
By ZOE EFSTATHIOU
00:31, Mon, Nov 7, 2016 | UPDATED: 15:27, Mon, Nov 7, 2016
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/729453/nato-putin-russia-war-troop s-military

Secretary General of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, said the allied nations are putting hundreds of thousands of troops in a state of high alert in an effort to deter a mounting threat from Moscow.

While Nato cut its defence budget and military investment since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has been bolstering its military capabilities, holding parades involving more than 100,000 troops each year. [1/3 of the NATO force]

Mr Stoltenberg said: “We have seen Russia being much more active in many different ways.

“We have seen a more assertive Russia implementing a substantial military build-up over many years; tripling defence spending since 2000 in real terms; developing new military capabilities; exercising their forces and using military force against neighbours.

Combat divers are armed with night vision goggles and underwater submachine gunsCombat swimmers who can parachute out of plane before using special underwater vehicle to plunge below waterVladimir Putin's Special Operations Forces can now swim at 15kmph up to 30 metres below the surfaceRussian Special Forces: Spetsnaz training in action. Soldiers endure burning cinderblocks broken over their stomachs and head with a sledgehammerRussian Special Forces: Excerises include taking full-force punches in the chest from their commanding officers without flinchingRussian Special Forces: Spetsnaz training in action Russian Special Forces: Soldiers are highly trained in combat where they are tested on their pain threshold. Soldiers are expected not to collapse after a hitRussian Special Forces: Spetsnaz are also known as 'Special Purpose Soldiers' Russian Special Forces: One aspect of 'Spetsnaz Special Forces' training is called pain management trainingRussian Special Forces: Soldiers are tested for their strength and pain threshold Russian Special Forces: Young soldiers are put through a harsh series of exercises
He told the Times: “We have also seen Russia using propaganda in Europe among Nato allies and that is exactly the reason why Nato is responding. We are responding with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War.”

Adam Thomson, the outgoing permanent representative to Nato, estimates that at present, it would take the military alliance 180 days to deploy a force of 300,000, and that speeding up this rate is of top importance.

The measures come in response to Russia flexing its military might abroad, allegedly conducting cyber attacks on Washington and holding nuclear war drills at home.

Last week, Moscow was seen as deliberately antagonising Nato by sending hundreds of paratroopers to a Serbian airbase despite Nato holding disaster relief exercises just 150 miles away in Montenegro.

PutinGETTY
Putin held military drills just 150 miles from Nato exercises in Montenegro last week
Putin's decision to hold military drills so close to Nato's emergency exercises in Montenegro - which went ahead despite Moscow's drills - was seen as a brazen stand-off between both sides.

Igor Sutyagin, an expert at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, said: "Russia wants to show that it can intimidate NATO… and NATO is saying to Russia, 'If you show up, we'll be there as well'."

Meanwhile, Russian authorities have been accused of attempting to pervert the democratic process of the US presidential election by hacking into Democrat emails and sharing findings with vigilante publishers such as WikiLeaks and DC Leaks.

Jens GETTY
Jens Stoltenberg, head of Nato, warns of the threat Russia poses

The prospect of cyber war between America and the Soviet state also comes as the threat of nuclear war increases, with Moscow holding bunker hide-out drills for its citizens.

In a TV advert a few weeks ago, Putin advised citizens to prepare themselves with gas masks and find out the location of their nearest bomb shelters.

The Russian president also sparked concern when he called for Russian nationals to return home for their own safety.

Related articles
Hillary Clinton slammed for 'itching' to fight Putin and ignite WW3
Beware Putin's 'revolutionary' SUPER TANK, MoD warns
NUCLEAR WARNING: Britain at 'significant risk' of Russian or ISIS bomb_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

It’s official, Russia has decided to grab the bull by the horns. Just one week after the shocking vote in the US presidential election resulted in a Trump victory, Russia has decided to pull all the stops and take care of some long lingering business while Obama’s administration is working overtime to manage a transition that no one expected would happen and Obama himself is out of the office, making what might be his very last visit to Europe, calming the closest of American allies in a time of serious questions about the future of the American relationship with NATO.

Obama has just two months before Trump will be sworn in and much of the time and energy of his staff will be consumed by briefing Trump and his cabinet, which is not yet fully formed, on their duties and on the situation in the world in general. Perhaps Obama’s own transition team will try to convince the Teflon Don and his staff to pursue a similar policy on many issues, not the least of which include Obamacare and the Paris agreement on climate change. Trump himself has already received a call from Putin shortly after the election, one of Trump’s most publicized calls with world leaders after news of his victory broke, putting even more pressure on Obama’s transition team to get their points across quickly.

In the meantime, Obama is making his last expected tour of Europe before Trump’s inauguration. It is not certain exactly why Obama chose to visit Greece first, but it is certainly significant that he was greeted with tens of thousands of protesters, in the least because it shows the current zeitgeist. Obama has to perform his duties of Salesman in Chief as he goes around to NATO allies and reassures them of budget commitments to American forces stationed abroad. I can only imagine the brain-tingling questions that Obama will have to field from the German and French defense ministers.

The main source of all the sweating European bureaucrats is Trump’s apparent friendliness with Russia and criticism of NATO, which could mean that Brussels will have to have some existential discussions on many long standing policies, including the sanctions against Russia. In fact, if Trump were to recognize Crimea as a legal part of Russia, as he has suggested that he is willing to do, Europe may either have to follow suit and bring down the house of cards commonly referred to as the Ukrainian Crisis or declare an open break with Washington’s foreign policy, a veritable checkmate.

If the current batch of Eurocrats were to keep their jobs (which is looking questionable), they would most probably try to avoid an open break with Washington or, ironically, risk losing their jobs. An open break with Washington would set the European Union into open waters of foreign policy sovereignty, a move that would meet with great resistance from many sources. Either way, an incredible shake-up is coming to Ukraine soon as they are about to have much less friends in the ‘international community’.

However, all of these major theatrical dramas and loud, painful snowflake whines are actually working wonderfully to divert attention from the real news. This last Monday night, Russia did several noteworthy things on a globally relevant geopolitical level that will surely resonate with the global movers and shakers. Russia launched an all-out air assault onto ‘Syrian rebels’ operating in the Homs, Idlib, and Latakia provinces of Syria. Monday night’s military campaign coincided with the biggest corruption bust in the history of modern Russia – the Russian Economy Minister Ulyukaev was taken into custody by the FSB after being caught demanding and accepting a $2 million bribe. Lastly, and perhaps less significantly but just as suddenly and symbolically, Russia has announced that it will no longer participate in the International Criminal Court.

However, in the humble opinion of this author, the most important fact to note connecting these three events is that they represent huge milestones in the modern history of Russia. One event is on the domestic political and economic level, connecting staff thought to be within the inner circle of the Kremlin specifically with financial corruption. The second is purely military in nature and works to show off the power projection capabilities of the modern Russian military. Thirdly, Russia’s decision to leave the ICC is a huge signal to Russia’s positions in the context of international bodies, up to and including the UN.

I would like to highlight this point just one more time to make sure that the meaning doesn’t slide by anyone. The government of Russia has just performed the biggest government shake up since the fall of the Soviet Union, with the FSB arresting the ‘untouchable’ Economy Minister from his post and placing him on a very public trial for extorting a very large bribe. Russia have also launched the biggest attack on an enemy military at least since the Second Chechen conflict, which was the major event of the first few years of Putin’s presidency over 17 years ago, and, at most, since Soviet forces left Afghanistan in 1989, 27 years ago. And lastly, Russia has made a very major and unexpected decision to abandon the jurisdictions of the ICC, long known for its adherence to justice and fair verdicts (sarcasm). AT NEARLY EXACTLY THE SAME TIME!

Is it just me, or does it seem like the planets are aligning here?

Let’s analyze the first event. Alexei Ulyukaev was accused of extorting a bribe from state-owned oil company Rosneft to tune of $2 million, cold hard cash, and was arrested by investigators (mostly three letter agencies) at night. To top it all off, one official said under condition of anonymity that Ulyukaev’s arrest was the final act in a yearlong investigation by the FSB. Ulyukaev, a member of the Russian government since the break-up of the Soviet Union, has been considered as member of Russia’s liberal, Western-leaning politicians. Of particular interest is Ulyukaev’s CV.

Ulyukaev has held some critical positions in the modern Russian government, including serving under Gaidar and managing the shock privatizations of Soviet assets (as well as the shock hyperinflation) from 1991-1994. He was a deputy to Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin from 2000-2004 before taking a job as the first vice-chairman of the Russian Central Bank, a position that he held from April 2004 to June 2013. When he was arrested, again, in the middle of the night, he was the acting Economy Minister.

Ulyukaev was certainly high on the list of those considered to be untouchable.

Along with Ulyukaev, the vice-governor of Saint Petersburg and some high-ranking officials in the regional government of the Kemerovo region have also been arrested for corruption after investigations by the FSB.

Various commentary has already surfaced claiming that Putin has turned to the age old Russian tradition of the Purge. Opinion leaders in the community are writing that no ‘chinovnik’ or oligarch could feel that ‘untouchable’ anymore after Ulyukaev’s arrest and that corrupt officials better behave or face the ax. Still others are claiming that Putin is consolidating his power and is preparing to become a dictator in the classic sense. No matter which explanation you prefer, the fact remains that the Russian government is powerfully expressing its political and economic sovereignty and is publicly making a loud statement against corruption.

The second incident was a comprehensive and simultaneous assault on rebel targets all over Syria in a very short time frame. Targets were struck with a bevy of missiles launched both from sea and by land. One of the most surprising features of this massive campaign is the sheer size and diversity of it. The Bastion system, highlighted as a defensive surface-to-surface missile system, showed off its potent attack power, engaging targets up to 300 miles away.

IHS Janes reports on the news that Russia is “not known to have previously claimed” that the Bastion, which is originally an anti-ship missile, “has a land attack capability”. It turns out that missile ‘defense’ systems designed to engage land targets, such as the United States Missile Defense systems in Poland and Romania, can easily be used to engage in attacks on land targets. Surprise, surprise.

However, the brunt of the missile strikes done by Kalibr missiles launched from the Mediterranean Sea, most notably from Russia’s new and improved frigate, the Admiral Grigorovich. In fact, the Russian naval group, led by the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, made ‘waves’ in Europe as the group was headed to their final destination, the Syrian coast, from which they launched volley after volley of high precision cruise missiles at targets from what is most likely a confusing medley of rebel groups. It is highly likely that, among the rebel groups which met the explosive end of a Russian cruise missile, some were directly funded by American allies, and less likely that the Russians even targeted groups directly trained or supplied by the CIA.

This major military move actually kills two birds with one stone. First, it provides Russia’s allies and ‘partners’ in the area with a bit of information about how far and in what quantity the Russian military can project its power. Further, it reveals that the Russians are most likely purposefully understating the power and capabilities of many of their newest technologies (although this should come as a surprise to no one). Also to this point, the Russian government did not ask permission of any international body when it passed through international waters and made its way to Syria, despite the ‘uncomfort’ felt in London. The second stone is that Russia has engaged in one of the most effective and convincing advertising campaigns for their newest export model military products. With loud fanfare, the Russians showed the world that Russian arms still give great bang for the buck.

The last major move, but, in the view of this author, not nearly as significant as the other two, is Russia’s decision to withdraw its signature from the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court. This move was sudden and symbolic, coming after the ICC ruled Russia’s ‘annexation’ Crimea illegal and called the current situation an ‘occupation’, but will lead to no noticeable change in real terms, since Russia never actually ratified the Rome Statute, meaning that it never submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the ICC to begin with.

I have recently posted a piece in which I tried to debunk a few popular myths about modern warfare. Judging by many comments which I received in response to this post, I have to say that the myths in question are still alive and well and that I clearly failed to convince many readers. What I propose to do today, is to look at what Russia is really doing in response to the growing threat from the West. But first, I have to set the context or, more accurately, re-set the context in which Russia is operating. Let’s begin by looking at the AngloZionist policies towards Russia.

The West’s actions:

First on this list is, obviously, the conquest by NATO of all of Eastern Europe. I speak of conquest because that is exactly what it is, but a conquest achieved according to the rules of 21st century warfare which I define as “80% informational, 15% economic and 5% military”. Yes, I know, the good folks of Eastern Europe were just dreaming of being subjugated by the US/NATO/EU/etc – but so what? Anyone who has read Sun Tzu will immediately recognize that this deep desire to be ‘incorporated’ into the AngloZionist “Borg” is nothing else but the result of a crushed self-identity, a deep-seated inferiority complex and, thus, a surrender which did not even have to be induced by military means. At the end of the day, it makes no difference what the locals thought they were achieving – they are now subjects of the Empire and their countries more or less irrelevant colonies in the fringe of the AngloZionist Empire. As always, the local comprador elite is now bubbling with pride at being, or so they think, accepted as equals by their new masters (think Poroshenko, Tusk or Grybauskaite) which gives them the courage to bark at Moscow from behind the NATO fence. Good for them.

Second is the now total colonization of Western Europe into the Empire. While NATO moved to the East, the US also took much deeper control of Western Europe which is now administered for the Empire by what the former Mayor of London once called the “great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies” – faceless bureaucrats à la François Hollande or Angela Merkel.

Third, the Empire has given its total support to semi-demonic creatures ranging from al-Khattab to Nadezhda Savchenko. The West’s policy is crystal clear and simple to the extreme: if it is anti-Russian we back it. This policy is best exemplified with a Putin and Russia demonization campaign which is, in my opinion, far worse and much more hysterical than anything during the Cold War.

Fourth, the West has made a number of highly disturbing military moves including the deployment of the first elements of an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, the dispatching of various forms of rapid reaction forces, the deployment of a few armored units, etc. NATO now has forward deployed command posts which can be used to support the engagement of a rapid reaction force.

What does all this add up to?

Right now, nothing much, really. Yes, the NATO move right up to the Russian borders is highly provocative, but primarily in political terms. In purely military terms, not only is this a very bad idea (see cliché #6 here), but the size of the actual forces deployed is, in reality, tiny: the ABM system currently deployed can, at best, hope to intercept a few missiles (10-20 depending on your assumptions) as for the conventional forces they are of the battalion size (more or less 600 soldiers plus support). So right now there is categorically no real military threat to Russia.

So why are the Russians so clearly upset?

Because the current US/NATO moves might well be just the first steps of a much larger effort which, given enough time, might begin presenting a very real danger for Russia.

Furthermore, the kind of rhetoric coming out of the West now is not only militaristic and russophobic, it is often outright messianic. The last time around the West had a flare up of its 1000 year old chronic “messianic syndrome” condition Russia lost 20 (to 30) million people. So the Russians can be forgiven if they are paying a great deal of attention to what the AngloZionist propaganda actually says about them.

The Russians are most dismayed at the re-colonization of western Europe. Long gone are the days when people like Charles de Gaulle, Helmut Schmidt or François Mitterrand, were in charge of Europe’s future. For all their very real faults, these men were at least real patriots and not just US colonial administrators. The ‘loss’ of Western Europe is far more concerning for the Russians than the fact that ex-Soviet colonies in Eastern Europe are now under US colonial administration. Why?

Look at this from the Russian point of view.

The Russians all see that the US power is on the decline and that the dollar will, sooner or later, gradually or suddenly, lose its role as the main reserve and exchange currency on the planet (this process has already begun). Simply put – unless the US finds a way to dramatically change the current international dynamic the AngloZionist Empire will collapse. The Russians believe that what the Americans are doing is, at best, to use tensions with Russia to revive a dormant Cold War v2 and, at worst, to actually start a real shooting war in Europe.

So a declining Empire with a vital need for a major crisis, a spineless Western Europe unable to stand up for its own interest, a subservient Eastern Europe just begging to turn into a massive battlefield between East and West, and a messianic, rabidly russophobic rhetoric as the background for an increase in military deployments on the Russian border. Is anybody really surprised that the Russians are taking all this very, very serious even if right now the military threat is basically non-existent?

The Russian reaction

So let us now examine the Russian reaction to Empire’s stance.

First, the Russians want to make darn sure that the Americans do not give in into the illusion that a full-scale war in Europe would be like WWII which saw the US homeland only suffer a few, tiny, almost symbolic, attacks by the enemy. Since a full scale war in Europe would threaten the very existence of the Russian state and nation, the Russians are now taking measures to make darn sure that, should that happen, the US would pay an immense price for such an attack.

Second, the Russians are now evidently assuming that a conventional threat from the West might materialize in the foreseeable future. They are therefore taking the measures needed to counter that conventional threat.

Third, since the USA appears to be dead set into deploying an anti-ballistic missile system not only in Europe, but also in the Far East, the Russians are taking the measures to both defeat and bypass this system.

The Russian effort is a vast and a complex one, and it covers almost every aspect of Russian force planing, but there are four examples which, I think, best illustrate the Russian determination not to allow a 22 June 1941 to happen again:

The re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army (in progress)
The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system (done)
The deployment of the Sarmat ICBM (in progress)
The deployment of the Status-6 strategic torpedo (in progress)
The re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army

It is hard to believe, but the fact is that between 1991 and 2016 Russia did not have a single large formation (division size and bigger) in its Western Military District. A few brigades, regiments and battalions which nominally were called an “Army”. To put it simply – Russia clearly did not believe that there was a conventional military threat from the West and therefore she did not even bother deploying any kind of meaningful military force to defend from such a non-existing threat. By the way, that fact should also tell you everything you need to know about Russian plans to invade the Ukraine, Poland or the Baltics: this is utter nonsense. This has now dramatically changed.

Russia has officially announced that the First Guards Tank Army (a formation with a prestigious and very symbolic history). This Guards Tank Army will now include the 4th “Kantemirov” Guards Tank Division, the 2nd “Taman” Guards Motorized Rifle Division, the 6th Tank Brigade, the 27th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade Sevastopol and many support units. This Army’s HQ will be located in the Odinstovo suburb of Moscow. Currently the Army is equipped with T-72B3 and T-80 main battle tanks, but they will be replaced by the brand new and revolutionary T-14 Armata tank while the current infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers will be replaced by the new APC and IFV. In the air, these armored units will be protected and supported by Mi-28 and Ka-52 attack helicopters. Make no mistake, this will be a very large force, exactly the kind of force needed so smash through an attacking enemy forces (by the way, the 1TGA was present at the Kursk battle). I am pretty sure that by the time the 1TGA is fully organized it will become the most powerful armored formation anywhere between the Atlantic and the Urals (especially in qualitative terms). If the current tensions continue or even worsen, the Russians could even augment the 1TGA to a type of 21st century “Shock Army” with increased mobility and specializing in breaking deep into the enemy’s defenses.

The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system

The new Iskander-M operational tactical missile system is a formidable weapon by any standard. While technically it is a short-range tactical missile (under 1000km range, the Iskander-M has an official range of 500km), it can also fire the R-500 missile has the capability of striking at an intermediate/operational range (over 1000km, the R-500 has a range of 2000km). It is extremely accurate, it has advanced anti-ABM capabilities, it flies at hypersonic speeds and is practically undetectable on the ground (see here for more details). This will be the missile tasked with destroying all the units and equipment the US and NATO have forward-deployed in Eastern Europe and, if needed, clear the way for the 1TGA.

The deployment of the Sarmat ICBM

Neither the 1TGA nor the Iskander-M missile will threaten the US homeland in any way. Russia thus needed some kind of weapon which would truly strike fear into the Pentagon and White House in the way the famous RS-36 Voevoda (aka SS-18 “Satan” in US classification) did during the Cold War. The SS-18, the most powerful ICBM ever developed, was scary enough. The RS-28 “Sarmat” (SS-X-30 by NATO classification) brings the terror to a totally new level.

The Sarmat is nothing short of amazing. It will be capable of carrying 10-15 MIRVed warheads which will be delivered in a so-called “depressed” (suborbital) trajectory and which will remain maneuverable at hypersonic speeds. The missile will not have to use the typical trajectory over the North Pole but will be capable of reaching any target anywhere on the planet from any trajectory. All these elements combined will make the Sarmat itself and its warheads completely impossible to intercept.

The Sarmat will also be capable of delivering conventional Iu-71 hypersonic warheads capable of a “kinetic strike” which could be used to strike a fortified enemy target in a non-nuclear conflict. This will be made possible by the amazing accuracy of the Sarmat’s warheads which, courtesy of a recent Russian leak, we now know have a CEP of 10 meters (see screen capture)

Sarmat MIRV CEPThe Sarmat’s silos will be protected by a unique “active protection measures” which will include 100 guns capable of firing a “metallic cloud” of forty thousand 30mm “bullets” to an altitude of up to 6km. The Russians are also planning to protect the Sarmat with their new S-500 air defense systems. Finally, the Sarmat’s preparation to start time will be under 60 seconds thanks a a highly automated launch system. What this all means is that the Sarmat missile will be invulnerable in its silo, during it’s flight and on re-entry in the lower parts of the atmosphere.

It is interesting to note that while the USA has made a great deal of noise around its planned Prompt Global Strike system, the Russians have already begun deploying their own version of this concept.

The deployment of the Status-6 strategic torpedo

Do you remember the carefully staged “leak” in November of last year when the Russians ‘inadvertently’ showed a super dooper secret strategic torpedo on prime time news? Here is this (in)famous slide:

Status6-2015

What is shown here is an “autonomous underwater vehicle” which has advanced navigational capabilities but which can also be remote controlled and steered from a specialized command module. This vehicle can dive as deep as 1000m, at a speed up to 185km/h and it has a range of up to 10’000km. It is delivered by specially configured submarines.

The Status-6 system can be used to target aircraft carrier battle groups, US navy bases (especially SSBN bases) and, in its most frighting configuration, it can be used to deliver high-radioactivity cobalt bombs capable of laying waste to huge expanses of land. The Status-6 delivery system would be a new version of the T-15 torpedo which would be 24m long, 1,5m wide weigh 40 tons and capable of delivering a 100 megaton warhead which would make it twice as powerful as the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated, the Soviet Czar-bomb (57 megatons). Hiroshima was only 15 kilotons.

Keep in mind that most of the USA’s cities and industrial centers are all along the coastline which makes them extremely vulnerable to torpedo based attacks (be it Sakharov’s proposed “Tsunami bomb” or the Status-6 system). And, just as in the case of the Iskander-M or the Sarmat ICBM, the depth and speed of the Status-6 torpedo would make it basically invulnerable to incerception.

Evaluation:

There is really nothing new in all of the above, and US military commanders have always known that. All the US anti-ballistic missile systems have always been primarily a financial scam, from Reagan’s “Star Wars” to Obama’s “anti-Iranian ABM”. For one thing, any ABM system is susceptible to ‘local saturation’: if you have X number ABM missile protecting a Y long space against an X number of missiles, all that you need to do is to saturate only one sector of the Y space with *a lot* of real and fake missiles by firing them all together through one small sector of the Y space the ABM missile system is protecting. And there are plenty of other measures the Russians could take. They could put just one single SLBM capable submarine in Lake Baikal making it basically invulnerable. There is already some discussion of that idea in Russia. Another very good option would be to re-activate the Soviet BzhRK rail-mobile ICBM. Good luck finding them in the immense Russian train network. In fact, the Russians have plenty of cheap and effective measure. Want me to list one more?

Sure!

Take the Kalibr cruise-missile recently seen in the war in Syria. Did you know that it can be shot from a typical commerical container, like the ones you will find on trucks, trains or ships? Check out this excellent video which explains this:

Just remember that the Kalibr has a range of anywhere between 50km to 4000km and that it can carry a nuclear warhead. How hard would it be for Russia to deploy these cruise missiles right off the US coast in regular container ships? Or just keep a few containers in Cuba or Venezuela? This is a system which is so undetectable that the Russians could deploy it off the coast of Australia to hit the NSA station in Alice Springs if they wanted, an nobody would even see it coming.

The reality is that the notion that the US could trigger a war against Russia (or China for that matter) and not suffer the consequences on the US mainland is absolutely ridiculous. And yet, when I hear all the crazy talk by western politicians and generals I get the impression that they are forgetting about this undeniable fact. Frankly, even the current threats against Russia have a ‘half-backed’ feel to them: a battalion here, another one there, a few missiles here, a few more there. It is like the rulers of the Empire don’t realize that it is a very, very bad idea to constantly poke a bear when all you are carrying with you is a pocket-knife. Sometimes the reaction of western politicians remind me of the thugs who try to rob a gas station with a plastic or empty gun and who are absolutely stunned with they get gunned down by the owner or the cops. This kind of thuggery is nothing more than a form of “suicide by cop” which never ends well for the one trying to get away with it.

So sometimes things have to be said directly and unambiguously: western politicians better not believe in their own imperial hubris. So far, all their threats have achieved is that the Russians have responded with a many but futile verbal protests and a full-scale program to prepare Russia for WWIII.

As I have written many times, Russians are very afraid of war and they will go out of their way to avoid it. But they are also ready for war. This is a uniquely Russian cultural feature which the West has misread an innumerable number of time over the past 1000 years or so. Over and over again have the Europeans attacked Russia only to find themselves into a fight they would never have imagined, even in their worst nightmares. This is why the Russians like to say that “Russia never starts wars, she only ends them”.

There is a profound cultural chasm between how the West views warfare and how the Russians do. In the West, warfare is, really, “the continuation of politics by other means”. For Russians, it is a ruthless struggle for survival. Just look at generals in the West: they are polished and well mannered managers much more similar to corporate executives than with, say, Mafia bosses. Take a look at Russian generals (for example, watch the Victory Day parade in Moscow). In comparison to their western colleagues they look almost brutish, because first and foremost they are ruthless and calculating killers. I don’t mean that in a negative way – they often are individually very honorable and even kind men, and like every good commander, they care for their men and love their country. But the business they are in in not the continuation of politics by other means, the business they are in is survival. At all cost.

You cannot judge a military or, for that matter, a nation, by how it behaves when it triumphs, when it is on the offensive pursing a defeated enemy. All armies look good when they are winning. You can really judge of the nature of a military, or a nation, at its darkest hour, when things are horrible and the situation worse than catastrophic. That was the case in 1995 when the Eltsin regime ordered a totally unprepared, demoralized, poorly trained, poorly fed, poorly equipped and completely disorganized Russian military (well, a few hastily assembled units) to take Grozny from the Chechens. It was hell on earth. Here is some footage of General Lev Rokhlin in a hastily organized command post in a basement inside Grozy. He is as exhausted, dirty and exposed as any of his soldiers. Just look at his face and look at the faces of the men around him. This is what the Russian army looks like when it is in the depth of hell, betrayed by the traitors sitting in the Kremlin and abandoned by most if the Russian people (who, I am sorry to remind here, mostly were only were dreaming of McDonalds and Michael Jackson in 1995).

Can you imagine, say, General Wesley Clark or David Petraeus fighting like these men did?

Check out this video of General Shamanov reading the riot act to a local Chechen politician (no translation need):

Vladimir_Shamanov._Cabinet_photoShamanov nowadays is the Commander in Chief of the Airborne Forces (see photo) whose size Putin quietly doubled to 72’000, something I mentioned in the past as highly relevant, especially in comparison with the rather tepid force level increases announced by NATO (see “EU suidice by reality denial”). To get a feel for what modern Russian airborne forces are like, check out this article.

It is not my intention here to glorify nuclear war or the Russian Armed Forces. The reason for this, and many other, articles is to try to raise the alarm about what I see is happening nowadays. Western leaders are drunk on their own imperial hubris, nations which in the past were considered as minor stains on a map now feel emboldened to constantly provoke a nuclear superpower, Americans are being lied to and promised that some magical high tech will protect them from war while the Russians are seriously gearing up for WWIII because they have come to the conclusion that the only way to prevent that war is to make absolutely and unequivocally clear to the AngloZionists that they will never survive a war with Russia, even if every single Russian is killed.

I remember the Cold War well. I was part of it. And I remember that the vast majority of us, on both sides, realized that a war between Russia and the West must be avoided at all costs. Now I am horrified when I read articles by senior officials seriously discussing such a possibility.

Just read this article, please: What would a war between the EU and Russia look like? Here is what this guy writes:

To the poetically inclined, the Russian military looks more like a gigantic pirate crew, than a regular army. The ones who rule are the ones with the sharpest cutlass and biggest mouth, typically some scurvy infested mateis who rely on the support of their mates to make any unpopular “officer” walk the plank… Or, more apt, they resemble the members of the cossack horde, run by the brashier warriors… While these troops can be very brave, at times, they are not effective in the field against a well regulated and trained modern military machine. Given this, it is improbably, ney, impossible for ordinary Russian troops to conduct operations of major consequence at more than platoon level against any disciplined armies, especially the US, British, German, or French.
The dream of the West
“For our zoo” (old Western dream)
This kind of writing really scares me. Not because of the imbecilic and racist stupidity of it, but because it largely goes unchallenged in the mainstream media. Not only that, there are plenty such articles written elsewhere (see here, here or here). Of course, the authors of that kind of “analyses” make their money precisely the kind of manic cheer-leading for the western forces, but that is exactly the mindset which got Napoleon and Hitler in trouble and which ended with Russian forces stationed in Paris and Berlin. Compare that kind of jingoistic and, frankly, irresponsible nonsense with what a real military commander, Montgomery, had to say on this topic:

The next war on land will be very different from the last one, in that we shall have to fight it in a different way. In reaching a decision on that matter, we must first be clear about certain rules of war. Rule 1, on page I of the book of war, is: “Do not march on Moscow”. Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule.
So who do you trust? Professional cheerleaders or professional soldiers? Do you really believe that Obama (or Hillary), Merkel and Hollande will do better than Napoleon or Hitler?

If the AngloZionist ‘deep state’ is really delusional enough to trigger a war with Russia, in Europe or elsewhere, the narcissistic and hedonistic West, drunk on its own propaganda and hubris, will discover a level of violence and warfare it cannot even imagine and if that only affected those responsible for these reckless and suicidal policies it would be great. But the problem is, of course, that many millions of us, simple, regular people, will suffer and die as a consequence of our collective failure to prevent that outcome. I hope and pray that my repeated warnings will at least contribute to what I hope is a growing realization that this folly has to be immediately stopped and that sanity must return to politics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATHhsrH16VQ
The World Military
1 year ago
•22,199 views
…
Club-K Container Missile System is designed for engagement: 1) surface ships of different classes and types -- 2) land and ...

This must be the question which I am most frequently asked. This is also the question to which I hear the most outlandish and ill-informed responses to. I have addressed this question in the past and those interested in this topic can consult the following articles:

Remembering the important lessons of the Cold War
Making sense of Obama’s billion dollar hammer
Why the US-Russian nuclear balance is as solid as ever
Short reminder about US and Russian nuclear weapons
Thinking the unthinkable
The Russia-U.S. Conventional Military Balance

It would be pointless for me to repeat it all here, so I will try to approach the issue from a somewhat different angle, but I would strongly recommend that those interested take the time to read this articles which, while mostly written in 2014 and 2015, are still basically valid, especially in the methodology used to tackle this issue. All I propose to do today is to debunk a few popular clichés about modern warfare in general. My hope is that by debunking them I will provide you with some tools to cut through the nonsense which the corporate media loves to present to us as “analysis”.

Cliché No 1: the US military has a huge conventional advantage over Russia

It all depends by what you mean by “advantage”. The US armed forces are much larger than the Russian ones, that is true. But, unlike the Russians ones, they are spread all over the planet. In warfare what matters is not the size of your military, but how much of it is actually available for combat in the theater of military operations TMO (conflict area). For example, if in any one given TMO you have only 2 airfields each capable of sustaining air operations for, say 100 aircraft, it will do you no good to have 1000 aircraft available. You might have heard the sentence “civilians focus on firepower, soldiers on logistics“. This is true. Modern military forces are extremely “support heavy” meaning that for one tank, aircraft or artillery piece you need a huge and sophisticated support line making it possible for the tank, aircraft or artillery piece to operate in a normal way. Simply put – if you tank is out of fuel or spares – it stops. So it makes absolutely no sense to say, for example, that the USA has 13’000 aircraft and Russia only 3’000. This might well be true, but it is also irrelevant. What matters is only how many aircraft the US and NATO could have ready to engage on the moment of the initiation of combat operations and what their mission would be. The Israelis have a long record of destroying the Arab air forces on the ground, rather than in the air, in surprise attacks which are the best way to negate a numerical advantage of an adversary. The reality is that the USA would need many months to assemble in western Europe a force having even a marginal hope to take on the Russian military. And the reality also is that nothing could force the Russians to just sit and watch while such a force is being assembled (the biggest mistake Saddam Hussein made).

Cliché No 2: an attacker needs a 3:1 or even 4:1 advantage over the defender.

Well, this is one “kinda true”, especially on a tactical level. There is an often used as a general rule of thumb that being in the defense gives you a 3:1 advantage meaning that if you have 1 battalion on the defense you should could about 3 battalions on the offense in order to hope for a victory. But when looking at an operational or, even more so, strategic level, this rule is completely false. Why? Because the defending side has a huge disadvantage: it is always the attacker who gets to decide when to attack, where and how. For those interested by this topic I highly recommend the book “Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defense Planning” by Richard Betts which, while relatively old (1982) and very focused on the Cold War, provides a very interesting and thorough discussion of the advantages and risks of a surprise attack. This is a fascinating topic which I cannot discuss in detail here, but let’s just say that a successfully pulled off surprise attack almost totally negates the advantage in theoretical forces ratios for the defender. Let me give you a simple example: imagine a front line of 50 km in which each 5 km are defended on both sides by a one division. So each sides has 10 divisions, each responsible for the defense of 5km of front, right? According to the 3:1 rule, side A needs 30 divisions to overcome the 10 divisions in the defense? Right? Wrong! What side A can do is concentrate 5 of its divisions on a 10km wide front and put the other five in the defense. On that 10km wide front of attack side now had 5 attacking divisions against 2 defending ones while on the rest of the front, side A has 5 defending divisions against 8 (potentially) attacking ones. Notice that now side B does not have a 3:1 advantage to overcome side A’s defenses (the actual ration is now 8:5). In reality what B will do is rush more divisions to defend the narrow 10km sector but that, in turn means that B now has less divisions to defense the full front. From here on you can make many assumptions: side B can counter-attack instead of defending, side B can defend in depth (in several “echelons”, 2 or even 3), side A could also begin by faking attack on one sector of the front and then attack elsewhere, or side A can send, say, one reinforced battalion to move really fast and create chaos deep in the defenses of B. My point here is simply that this 3:1 rules is purely a tactical rule of thumb and that in real warfare theoretical forces ratios (norms) require much more advanced calculations, including the consequences of a surprise attack.

Cliché No 3: high technology wins the day

That is a fantastically false statement and yet this myth is sacred dogma amongst civilians, especially in the USA. In the real world, high teach weapons systems, while very valuable, also come with a long list of problems the first one of which is simply cost.

[Sidebar: when I was studying military strategy in the late 1990s one of our teachers (from the US Air Force) presented us with a graph showing the increasing cost of a single US fighter aircraft from the 1950s to the 1990s. He then projected this trend in the future and jokingly concluded that by roughly 2020 (iirc) the USA would only have the money to afford one single and very, very expensive fighter. This was a joke, of course, but it had a very serious lesson in it: runways costs can result in insanely expensive weapon systems which can only be produced at very few copies and which are very risky to engage].

Technology is also typically fragile and requires a very complex support, maintenance and repair network. It makes no sense to have the best tank on the planet if it spends most of its time in major repairs.

Furthermore, one of the problems of sophisticated high tech gear is that its complexity makes it possible to attack it in many different ways. Take, for example, an armed drone. It can be defeated by:

There are many more possible measures, it all depends on the actual threat. They key here is, again, cost and practicality: how much does it cost to develop, build and deploy an advanced weapon system versus the cost of one (or several) counter-measures.

Finally, history has shown over and over again that willpower is far more important that technology. Just look at the absolutely humiliating and total defeat of the multi-billion high tech Israeli Defense Forces by Hezbollah in 2006. The Israelis used their entire air force, a good part of their navy, their very large artillery, their newest tanks and they were defeated, horribly defeated, by probably about less than 2000 Hezbollah fighters, and even those where not the very best Hezbollah had (Hezbollah kept the best ones north of the Litani river). Likewise, the NATO air campaign against the Serbian Army Crops in Kosovo will go down in history as one of the worst defeats of a huge military alliance backed by high tech weapons by a small country equipped with clearly dated weapon systems.

[Sidebar: on both these wars what really “saved the day” for the AngloZionists is a truly world-class propaganda machine which successfully concealed the magnitude of the defeat of the AngloZionist forces. But the information is out there, and you can look it up for yourself].

Cliché No 4: big military budgets win the day

That is also a myth which is especially cherished in the USA. How often have you heard something like “the billion dollar B-2” or the “6 billion dollar Nimitz class aircraft carrier”? The assumption here is that if the B-2 or the Nimitz costs so much money they must be truly formidable. But are they?

Take the three hundred million dollar plus dollar F-22A “Raptor” and then look up the “deployment” subsection in the Wikipedia article about the F-22A. What have we got? A few Russian T-95 (date of introduction: 1956) bomber intercepts and one Iranian F-4 Phantom (date of introduction: 1960) interception. That, a few bombing runs in Syria and a motley assortment of overseas deployments for PR reasons. That’s it! On paper the F-22A is an awesome aircraft and, in many ways is really is, but the real life reality is that the F-22A was only used on missions which an F-16, F-15 or F-18 could have done for cheaper and even done it better (the F-22A is a crappy bomber, if only because it was never designed to be one).

I already hear the counter argument: the F-22A was designed for a war against the USSR and had that war happened it would have performed superbly. Yeah, maybe, except that less than 200 were ever built. Except that in order to maintain a low radar cross section the F-22 has a tiny weapons bay. Except that the Soviets deployed infra-red search and track systems on all their MiG-29s (a very non-high-teach fighter) and their SU-27s. Except that the Soviets had already begun developing “anti-stealth” radars and that nowadays the F-22A is basically useless against modern Russian radars. None of that negates that in terms of technology, the F-22A is a superb achievement and a very impressive air superiority fighter. But one which would not have made a significant difference in a real war between the USA and the Soviet Union.

Cliché No 5: big military alliances help win wars

One more myth about wars which is cherished in the West: alliances win wars. The typical example is, of course, WWII: in theory, Germany, Italy and Japan formed the “Axis powers” while 24 nations (including Mongolia and Mexico) formed the “Allies“. As we all know, the Allies defeated the Axis. That is utter nonsense. The reality is very different. Hitler’s forces included about 2 million Europeans for 15 different countries which added 59 divisions, 23 brigades, a number of separate regiments, battalions and legions to the German forces (source: here, here, here and here). Furthermore, the Red Army account for no less than 80% of all the German losses (in manpower and equipment) during the war. All the others, including the USA and the UK, shared the puny 20% or less and joined the war when Hitler was already clearly defeated. Some will mention the various resistance movements which did resist the Nazis, often heroically. I don’t deny their valor and contribution, but it is important to realize that no resistance movement in Europe ever defeated a single German Wehrmacht or SS division (10 to 15 thousand men). In comparison, in Stalingrad alone the Germans lost 400’000 soldiers, the Romanians 200’000, the Italians 130’000, and the Hungarians 120,000 for a total loss of 850’000 soldiers. In the Kursk battle the Soviets defeated 50 German divisions counting about 900’000 soldiers.

[Sidebar: While resistance movements were typically engaged in sabotage, diversion or attacks on high value targets, they were never designed to attack regular military formations, not even a company (120 men or so). The German forces in the USSR were structures into several “Army Groups” (Heeresgruppe) each of which contained 4-5 Armies (each with about 150’000 soldiers). What I am trying to illustrate with these figures is that the magnitude of the combat operations on the Eastern Front was not only different from what any resistance movement can deal with, but also different from any other theater of military operations during WWII, at least for land warfare – the naval war in the Pacific was also fought on a huge scale].

The historical record is that one unified military force under one command usually performs much better than large alliances. Or, to put it differently, when large alliances do form, there is typically the “one big guy” who really matters and everybody else is more or less a sideshow (of course, the individual combatant who gets attacked, maimed and killed does not feel that he is a “sideshow”, but that does not change the big picture).

Speaking of NATO the reality is that there is no NATO outside the USA. The USA is the only country in NATO which really matters. Not just in terms of numbers and firepower, but also in terms of intelligence, force projection, mobility, logistics, etc. Every single US commanders knows and understands that perfectly, and while he will be impeccably courteous to his non-US colleagues in Mons or during cocktail parties in Brussels, if the proverbial bovine excreta hits the fan and somebody has to go and fight the Russians, the Americans will count solely on themselves and will be happy of the rest of the NATO members get out of the way without delay.

Cliché No 6: forward deployment gives a major advantage

Day after day we hear the Russians complaining that NATO has moved to their borders, that thousands of US troops are now deployed in the Baltics or Poland, that the US has deployed anti-ballistic missiles in Romania and that USN ships are constantly hugging the Russian coast in the Black and Baltic Sea. And it’s all true and very deplorable. But where the Russians are being a tad disingenuous is when they try to present all this as a military threat to Russia.

The truth is that from a purely military point of view, deploying US forces in the Baltic states of sending USN ships into the Black Sea are very bad ideas, in the first case because the three Baltics states are indefensible anyway, and it the second case because the Black Sea is, for all practical purposes, a Russian lake where the Russian military can detect and destroy any ship within 30 minutes or less. The American are quite aware of that and if they decided to strike at Russia they would not do if from forward deployed ship but with long-range standoff weapons such as ballistic or cruise missiles.

[Sidebar: the notion that Russia would ever want to attack any of the Baltic states or sink a USN ship is ridiculous and I am in no way suggesting that this might happen. But when looking at purely military issues you look at capabilities, not intentions.]

The range of modern weapons is such that in case of war in Europe there will probably not be a real “front” and a “rear”, but being closer to the enemy still makes you easier to detect and exposes you to a wider array of possible weapons. Simply put, the closer you are to Russian firepower, electronic warfare systems, reconnaissance networks and personnel, the greater number of potential threats you need to worry about.

I would not go as far as to say that forward deployment does not give you any advantage, it does: your weapon systems can reach further, the flight time of your missiles (ballistic and cruise) is shorter, your aircraft need less fuel to get to their mission area, etc. But these advantages come at a very real cost. Currently forward deployed US forces are, at best, a trip-wire force whose aim is political: to try to demonstrate commitment. But they are not any real threat to Russia.

Cliché No 7: The US and NATO are protecting East European countries

On paper and in the official NATO propaganda, all of Europe and the USA are ready, if needed, to start WWIII to defend Estonia from the revanchist Russian hordes. Judging at how the tiny Baltic states and Poland constantly “bark” at Russia and engage in an apparently never-ending streams of infantile but nonetheless arrogant provocations, folks in eastern Europe apparently believe that. They think that they are part of NATO, part of the EU, part of the “civilized West” and that their AngloZionist patrons will protect them from these scary Russkies. That belief just shows how stupid they are.

I wrote above that the USA is the only real military force in NATO and that US military and political leaders all know that. And they are right. Non-US NATO capabilities are a joke. What in the world do you think the, say, Belgian or Polish armed forces are in reality. That’s right – both a joke and a target. How about the glorious and invincible Portuguese and Slovenians? Same deal. The reality is that non-US NATO armed forces are just fig leaves hiding the fact that Europe is a US colony – some fig leaves are bigger, other are smaller. But even the biggest fig leaves (Germany and France) are still only that – a disposable utensil at the service of the real masters of the Empire. Should a real war ever break up in Europe, all these pompous little European statelets will be told to get the * out of the way and let the big boys take care of business. Both the Americans and the Russians know that, but for political reasons they will never admit this publicly.

Here I have to admit that I cannot prove that. All I can do is offer a personal testimony. While I was working on my Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies in Washington DC I had the opportunity to meet and spend time with a lot of US military personnel ranging from Armored Cavalry officers deployed in the Fulda Gap to a Chief of Naval Operations. The first thing that I will say about them is that they were all patriots and, I think, excellent officers. They were all very capable of distinguishing political nonsense (like the notion of forward deploying US carriers to strike at the Kola Peninsula) from how the US would really fight. One senior Pentagon officer attached to the Office of Net Assessment was very blunt about that and declared to our classroom “no US President will ever sacrifice Chicago to protect Munich”. In other words, yes, the US would fight the Soviets to protect Europe, but the US will never escalate that fight to the point were the US territory would be threatened by Soviet nukes.

The obvious flaw here is that this assumes that escalation can be planned and controlled. Well, escalation is being planned in numerous offices, agencies and departments, but all these models usually show that it is very hard to control. As for de-escalation, I don’t know of any good models describing it (but my personal exposure to that kind of things is now very old, maybe things have changed since the late 1990s?). Keep in mind that both the USA and Russia have the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a defeat in conventional warfare included in their military doctrines. So if we believe, as I do, that the US is not willing to go nuclear to, say, save Poland then this basically means that the US is not even willing to defend Poland by conventional means or, at least, not defend it very much.

Again, the notion that Russia would attack anybody in Europe is beyond ridiculous, no Russian leader would ever even contemplate such a stupid, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating plan, if only because Russia has no need for any territory. If Putin told Poroshenko that he did not want to take over the Donbass, how likely is that that the Russians are dreaming of occupying Lithuania or Romania?! I challenge anybody to come up with any rational reason for the Russians to want to attack any country in the West (or elsewhere, for that matter) even if that country had no military and was not member of any military alliance. In fact, Russia could have *easily* invaded Georgia in the 08/08/08 war but did not. And when is the last time you heard Mongolia or Kazakhstan fearing a Russian (or Chinese) invasion?

So the simple truth is that for all the big gesticulations and vociferous claims about defending the Europeans against the “Russian threat” there is no Russian threat just like the USA will never deliberately initiate a nuclear slugfest with Russia to defend Chisinau or even Stockholm.

Conclusion

So if all of the above are just clichés with no bearing on reality, why is the western corporate media so full of this nonsense? Mainly for two reasons: journalists are mostly “Jack of all trades, master of none” and they much prefer to pass on pre-packaged propaganda then to make the effort to try to understand something. As for the talking heads on TV, the various generals who speak as “experts” for CNN and the rest, they are also simply propagandists. The real pros are busy working for the various government agencies and they don’t go in live TV to speak about the “Russian threat”. But the most important reason for this nonsensical propaganda is that by constantly pretending to discuss a military issue the AngloZionist propagandist are thereby hiding the real nature of the very real conflict between Russia and the USA over Europe: a political struggle for the future of Europe: if Russia has no intention of invading anybody, she sure does have huge interest in trying to de-couple Europe from its current status of US colony/protectorate. The Russians fully realize that while the current European elites are maniacally russophobic, most Europeans (with the possible exception of the Baltic States and Poland) are not. In that sense the recent Eurovision vote where the popular vote was overturned by so-called “experts” is very symbolic.

The first Secretary General of NATO did very openly spell out its real purpose “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” The Russians want it exactly the other way around: the Russians in (economically, not militarily, of course), the Americans out and the Germans up (again, economically). That is the real reason behind all the tensions in Europe: the USA desperately wants a Cold War v.2 while Russia is trying as hard as she can to prevent this.

So, what would a war between Russia and the USA look like? To be honest, I don’t know. It all depends on so many different factors that it is pretty much impossible to predict. That does not mean that it cannot, or will not, happen. There are numerous very bad signs that the Empire is acting in an irresponsible way. One of the worst ones is that the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) has almost completely ceased to function.

The main reason for the creation of the NRC was to make sure that secure lines of communications were open, especially in a crisis or tension situation. Alas, as a way to signal their displeasure with Russia over the Ukraine, NATO has now almost completely closed down the NRC even though the NRC was precisely created for that purpose.

Furthermore, forward deploying, besides often being militarily useless, is also potentially dangerous as a local incident between the two sides can rapidly escalate into something very serious. Especially when important lines of communications have been done away with. The good news, relatively speaking, is that the US and Russia still have emergency communications between the Kremlin and the White House and that the Russian and US armed forces also have direct emergency communication capabilities. But at the end of the day, the problem is not a technological one, but a psychological one: the Americans are apparently simply unable or unwilling to negotiate about anything at all. Somehow, the Neocons have imposed their worldview on the US deep state, and that worldview is that any dynamic between Russia and the USA is a zero sum one, that there is nothing to negotiate and that forcing Russia to comply and submit to the Empire by means of isolation and containment is the only thinkable approach. This will, of course, not work. The question is whether the Neocons have the intellectual capability to understand that or, alternatively, whether the “old” (paleo-conservative) Anglo US patriots can finally kick the “crazies in the basement” (as Bush senior used to refer to the Neocons) out of the White House.

But if Hillary makes it into the White House in November, then things will become really scary. Remember how I said that no US President would ever sacrifice a US city in defense of a European one? Well, that assumes a patriotic President, one who loves his country. I don’t believe that the Neocons give a damn about America or the American people, and these crazies might well think that sacrificing one (or many) US cities is well worth the price if that allows them to nuke Moscow.

Any theory of deterrences assumes a “rational actor”, not a psychopathic and hate-filled cabal of “crazies in a basement”.

During the last years of the Cold War I was much more afraid of the gerontocrats in the Kremlin than of the Anglo officers and officials in the White House or the Pentagon. Now I fear the (relatively) new generation of “ass-kissing little chickenshit” officers à la Petraeus, or maniacs like General Breedlove, which have replaced the “old style” Cold Warriors (like Admirals Elmo Zumwalt, William Crowe or Mike Mullen) who at least knew that a war with Russia must be avoided at all cost. It is outright frightening for me to realize that the Empire is now run by unprofessional, incompetent, unpatriotic and dishonorable men who are either driven by hateful ideologies or whose sole aim in life is to please their political bosses.

'The British Army's only remaining fighting unit could be wiped out "in an afternoon" in conflict with an enemy such as Russia as "years of budget cuts" have left it with just one war-fighting brigade, the army's in-house think tank has claimed.

A "hollowing out or depletion of the army's capabilities" has "effectively removed" Britain's ability to deploy a fighting force, according to a paper published by the Centre for Historical Analysis and Conflict Research (CHACR), which is made up of current and former "soldier-scholars".

Serving and retired soldiers met with military academics for a two-day conference in 2016, where they scrutinised Britain's fighting capability in "a few plausible scenarios" where the UK entered into direct war with another country, before compiling the paper.

The last time Britain sent a division to war was in 2003, to Iraq, and the report's authors do note that "we might not be facing an immediate risk of a direct attack by a foreign state."

But Britain's relationship with Russia, in particular, has deteriorated in recent months. Russia's apparent involvement in hacking emails to influence the American presidential election added to a fresh wave of hostility, driven in part by Russia's alleged war crimes in Syria, such as bombing schools and hospitals in support of President Bashar al-Assad.

'This raises an important question: is the British Army ready for such a possibility?" CHACHR ask.

"If one merely sees preparedness through net manpower and kinetic force capacity, the answer might be a simple ‘no’: the British Army is at its smallest and has faced years of budget cuts.

"The prospect of 'losing the division in an afternoon' will weigh heavily on the chain of command, with strategic-to-tactical command compression almost inevitable as politicians appreciate the stakes involved in committing the division to battle."

The Army would only be able to muster a brigade 5000 to 10,000 war-fighting troops if war broke out tomorrow, though this division will be expanded from a total manpower of 30,000 to 50,000 in coming years. The RAF is not able to move large numbers of heavy vehicles such as tanks, while only a third of the war-fighting brigade would be able to fit onto its naval fleet.

In recent years, the Army has been focused on counter-insurgency operations, particularly in Afghanistan. But those conflicts requires a very different fighting-force to one prepared for large-scale battles against Britain's well-equipped opponents in a rapidly-chilling cold war.'

I hope all the armchair warriors in Parliament read this; it might put a brake on their bellicosity._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

The European Court of Justice, Europe’s top court, on Tuesday ruled that sanctions imposed by the UK and the EU on Russia’s oil giant Rosneft are valid, in a ruling that also asserts the court’s jurisdiction over the common policy of the European Union (EU).

The EU imposed sanctions on Russia in 2014 over Moscow’s annexation of Crimea, with economic sanctions slapped in July 2014 and reinforced in September 2014, including against certain Russian companies that include Rosneft.

Rosneft had challenged before the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) the validity, in the light of EU law, of the restrictive measures imposed by the European Council on it and the implementing measures adopted by the United Kingdom that are based on the Council acts. The European Court of Justice was asked to rule, in essence, if the acts of the Council and the United Kingdom are valid.

In its ruling published today, the court said that “The restrictive measures adopted by the Council in response to the crisis in Ukraine against certain Russian undertakings, including Rosneft, are valid.”

“The Court holds that the importance of the objectives pursued by the contested acts is such as to justify certain operators being adversely affected. Having regard to the fact that the restrictive measures adopted by the Council in reaction to the crisis in Ukraine have become progressively more severe, interference with Rosneft’s freedom to conduct a business and its right to property cannot be considered to be disproportionate,” the court said.

Following the court ruling, Rosneft issued a statement in which it said it was disappointed by the ruling, and that it considers the court decision “illegal, groundless and politicized”.

The Court refused to admit that the EU sanctions were imposed, in particular, to achieve hidden purposes and are, in fact, an instrument of competitive struggle. Nevertheless, the Court could not explain why the limitations, applied under the pretext of Crimea's accession to Russia, involve access of oil companies to international financial markets, oil production at the Arctic shelf, development of tight reserves, deep-water and shale fields. The Company considers that the sanctions imposed against it by the EU states are primarily aimed at increasing risks of busines operations, obstructing implementation of Rosneft's important projects and thus creating preferences for other oil market players.

The Court ignored its own existing precedents when the decision on EU sanctions was revised by the same court due to lack of substantial evidence. For instance Iranian banks included in the EU sanctions list successfully appealed the EU regulation. The Court stated that they are not related to the nuclear program of the IRI that was the object of sanctions and the existence of the close ties to the government is not a satisfactory argument for including them in the list.

The Court refused to acknowledge that unilateral economic sanctions restrict trade by definition and contradict existing provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between Russia and the EU, signed in 1994. The EU’s decision to impose the sanctions is, in fact, a legitimated refusal to fulfill its obligations under international law.

"755 American diplomats will have to leave Russia as a result of Washington's own policies, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said in an exclusive interview with the Rossiya 1 TV channel.
"The American side has made a move which, it is important to note, hasn't been provoked by anything, to worsen Russian-US relations. [It includes] unlawful restrictions, attempts to influence other states of the world, including our allies, who are interested in developing and keeping relations with Russia," Putin told channel host, Vladimir Solovyov, Sunday.

"We've been waiting for quite a long time that maybe something would change for the better, we had hopes that the situation would change. But it looks like, it's not going to change in the near future... I decided that it is time for us to show that we will not leave anything unanswered," the Russian president added." https://www.rt.com/news/398019-putin-us-diplomats-sanctions/_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

I have recently posted a piece in which I tried to debunk a few popular myths about modern warfare. Judging by many comments which I received in response to this post, I have to say that the myths in question are still alive and well and that I clearly failed to convince many readers. What I propose to do today, is to look at what Russia is really doing in response to the growing threat from the West. But first, I have to set the context or, more accurately, re-set the context in which Russia is operating. Let’s begin by looking at the AngloZionist policies towards Russia.

The West’s actions:

First on this list is, obviously, the conquest by NATO of all of Eastern Europe. I speak of conquest because that is exactly what it is, but a conquest achieved according to the rules of 21st century warfare which I define as “80% informational, 15% economic and 5% military”. Yes, I know, the good folks of Eastern Europe were just dreaming of being subjugated by the US/NATO/EU/etc – but so what? Anyone who has read Sun Tzu will immediately recognize that this deep desire to be ‘incorporated’ into the AngloZionist “Borg” is nothing else but the result of a crushed self-identity, a deep-seated inferiority complex and, thus, a surrender which did not even have to be induced by military means. At the end of the day, it makes no difference what the locals thought they were achieving – they are now subjects of the Empire and their countries more or less irrelevant colonies in the fringe of the AngloZionist Empire. As always, the local comprador elite is now bubbling with pride at being, or so they think, accepted as equals by their new masters (think Poroshenko, Tusk or Grybauskaite) which gives them the courage to bark at Moscow from behind the NATO fence. Good for them.

Second is the now total colonization of Western Europe into the Empire. While NATO moved to the East, the US also took much deeper control of Western Europe which is now administered for the Empire by what the former Mayor of London once called the “great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies” – faceless bureaucrats à la François Hollande or Angela Merkel.

Third, the Empire has given its total support to semi-demonic creatures ranging from al-Khattab to Nadezhda Savchenko. The West’s policy is crystal clear and simple to the extreme: if it is anti-Russian we back it. This policy is best exemplified with a Putin and Russia demonization campaign which is, in my opinion, far worse and much more hysterical than anything during the Cold War.

Fourth, the West has made a number of highly disturbing military moves including the deployment of the first elements of an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, the dispatching of various forms of rapid reaction forces, the deployment of a few armored units, etc. NATO now has forward deployed command posts which can be used to support the engagement of a rapid reaction force.

Moscow summons senior US diplomat to protest over building closures in latest escalation of diplomatic tensions

Russia has hit out at the US over what it called the “unprecedented aggressive action” of plans to conduct searches in the country’s trade mission complex in Washington, upping the ante in the latest diplomatic spat between the two nations.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said it summoned Antony F Godfrey, a deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Moscow to hand over a strongly-worded protest note, which said the planned “illegal inspection” of Russian diplomatic housing could be used by the US special services for “anti-Russian provocations” by the way of “planting compromised items.” The US has not responded to the allegations.

The move follows an announcement from the US earlier this week that it would move to close the Russian consulate in San Francisco, as well as diplomatic annexes in New York and Washington as part of escalating tit-for-tat that began in the aftermath of the US Presidential election.

Read more

The Trump-Russia probe contains new and explosive allegations

It also comes amid reports of fires at the Russian diplomatic premises in Washington and San Francisco, sparking speculation that documents might be being burned before closure - which was expected on Saturday.

In Washington, Foreign Policy reported signs that staff were burning paper at the Trade Representative of the Russian Federation, which came after images of thick black smoke coming from the chimney of the building in San Francisco.

Mindy Talmadge, a spokeswoman from the San Francisco Fire Department, told the Associated Press that the department received a call about the smoke and sent a crew to investigate but determined the smoke was coming from the chimney.
The biggest names involved in the Trump-Russia investigation

15 show all

Ms Talmadge said she did not know what they were burning on a day when normally cool San Francisco temperatures had already climbed to 95 degrees by noon.

“It was not unintentional. They were burning something in their fireplace,” she said.

Responding to the reports, Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry, said it was part of a “mothballing”.

“In relation to this, the windows could be closed, the light could be turned off, the water could be drained out, the heating appliances could be turned off, the garbage could be thrown away, essential services could be turned off and many other things,” she wrote on social media.
Play Video
Play
0:00
/
0:20

The cooling of diplomatic co-operation between the two nations began in late 2016, when then-President Barack Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats and the seizure of two Russian government compounds in response to US intelligence services stating that Russia had sought to interfere in the election that made Donald Trump president.

At the time, Russia said it would not retaliate immediately, but would wait to see what the Trump administration would do. However, after Donald Trump reluctantly backed expanded sanctions against Russia voted for by Congress in July, Moscow ordered the US to cut its diplomatic staff in Russia by around half as well as announcing property seizures of its own. That would bring the number of staff down to 455, to match the number of Russian diplomats in the US.

That move prompted the US to announce the closures in San Francisco and on the East Coast, bringing the latest Russian protest note.
Read more

Trump is 'seized with fear' over Russia investigation, says Dan Rather
US orders Russia to close diplomatic offices in three US cities
Mueller seeks to draw Paul Manafort into Trump-Russia probe
Trump allies 'should not expect pardons over Russia investigation'

“The note stressed that we are considering a planned illegitimate search of diplomatic premises in Russia without the presence of Russian officials and a threat to crack the front door as an unprecedented, aggressive action that can also be used by the US special services to organise an anti-Russian provocation using planted compromising objects,” a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

“The US authorities must stop the gross violations of international law and breaching the immunity of Russia's diplomatic institutions. Otherwise, we reserve the right to reciprocate on mutual basis,” it added.
Here are the 9 easiest languages to learn for Englis…Babbel
13 Gorgeous Wives & Girlfriends Of The World's Richest MenHooch
Flight Prices You're not Allowed to SeeSave70.com

by Taboola
Sponsored Links

The State Department is not commenting specifically on whether officials plan to search the premises. But the State Department said that as of Saturday, access to the consulate will only be granted with State Department permission. The State Department says it will “secure and maintain the properties in keeping with our responsibilities.”

A senior aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin called Washington's had decried the US decision to close the diplomatic premises via state media late on Friday.

“These new steps push the bilateral relations further into a deadlock,” Yuri Ushakov told Russia Today late Friday.

Something rather unprecedented just happened in Syria: US backed “good terrorist” forces attempted a surprise attack against Syrian government forces stationed to the north and northeast of the city of Hama. What makes this attack unique is that it took place inside a so-called “de-escalation zone” and that it appears that one of the key goals of the attack was to encircle in a pincer-movement and subsequently capture a platoon of Russian military police officers deployed to monitor and enforce the special status of this zone. The Russian military police forces, composed mainly of soldiers from the Caucasus region, fought against a much larger enemy force and had to call for assistance. For the first time, at least officially, Russian special operations forces were deployed to rescue and extract their comrades. At the same time, the Russians sent in a number of close air support aircraft who reportedly killed several hundred “good” terrorists and beat back the attack (Russian sources speak of the destruction of 850 fighters, 11 tanks, three infantry fighting vehicles, 46 armed pickup trucks, five mortars, 20 freighter trucks and 38 ammo supply points; you can see photos of the destroyed personnel and equipment here). What also makes this event unique is the official reaction of the Russians to this event.

Head of the Main Operations Department at Russia’s General Staff Colonel General Sergei Rudskoi declared that:

“Despite agreements signed in Astana on September 15, gunmen of Jabhat al-Nusra and joining them units that don’t want to comply with the cessation of hostilities terms, launched a large-scale offensive against positions of government troops north and northeast of Hama in Idlib de-escalation zone from 8 am on September 19 (…) According to available data, the offensive was initiated by American intelligence services to stop a successful advance of government troops east of Deir ez-Zor“.
Today, other Russian officials have added a not-so-veiled threat to this accusation. The Russian Defense Ministry’s spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov has declared that:

Russia unequivocally told the commanders of US forces in Al Udeid Airbase (Qatar) that it will not tolerate any shelling from the areas where the SDF are stationed (…) Fire from positions in regions [controlled by the SDF] will be suppressed by all means necessary.
This is unprecedented on many levels. First, the Russians clearly believe that this attempt to kill or capture a platoon of the Russian military police was planned by the United States. The fact that they are making this accusation officially shows the degree of irritation felt by the Russians about the duplicity of the Americans. Second, this is the first time, at least to my knowledge, that Russian Spetsnaz forces had to be sent in to rescue a surrounded Russian subunit. All Spetsnaz operators survived, but three of them were wounded in the operation (the Russians are not saying how badly). The close air support by very low flying SU-25 aircraft was obviously coordinated by Spetsnaz forward air controllers and probably saved the day. In other words, this was a close call and things could have ended much more badly (just imagine what the Takfiri crazies would have done, on video, to any captured Russian serviceman!). Finally, a US-organized attack on what was supposed to be a “de-confliction” zone combined with an attempt to capture Russian soldiers raises the bar for American duplicity to a totally new level.

The big question now is “do the Russians mean it?” or are they just whining with real determination to hit back if needed.

There are a couple of problems here. First, objectively, the Russian contingent in Syria is a tiny one if compared to the immense power of CENTCOM, NATO and the ever-present Israelis. Not only that, but in any US-Russian confrontation, Russia as a country is objectively the weaker side by any measure except a full-out nuclear exchange. So the Russians are not in a position of force. Furthermore, for historical and cultural reasons, Russians are much more concerned by the initiation of any incident which could lead to all-out war than the Americans who always fight their wars in somebody else’s country. This might seem paradoxical, but the Russians fear war but they are ready for it. In contrast to the Russians, the Americans don’t fear war, but neither are they ready for it. In practical terms this means that an American miscalculation could very well lead to a Russian military response which would stun the Americans and force them to enter an escalatory spiral which nobody would control.

Remember how Hillary promised that she would unilaterally impose a so-called “no-fly” zone over Syria? She promised not only to deploy US aircraft above Russian forces in Syria, but she also promised that she would force the Russian Aerospace forces out of the Syrian skies. Thank God, this crazy witch was not elected, but it appears that folks with the same arrogant and,frankly, completely irresponsible point of view are now back in power under Trump.

My fear now is that the incompetent, arrogant, not too bright and generally ignorant commanders at the Pentagon and the CIA will simply ignore clear warning signs coming from the Russians, including the public announcement that the Kremlin has given the authority to use force to protect Russian personnel to the local Russian commanders in Syria. In plain English, this means that if they are attacked the Russians in Syria do not need to consult with Moscow before using force to protect themselves. By the way, such rules of engagement are pretty common, there is nothing earth shattering here, but the fact that they were made public is, again, a message to the AngloZionist and the “good” terrorist they use to try to conquer Syria.

This time around we (the world) were lucky. The Syrians fought hard and the “good” terrorists were probably surprised by the ruthless determination of the Russian military police forces (in reality, mostly Chechen special forces) and of the Spetsnaz operators. It is one thing to fight Syrian conscripts, quite another to deal with these hardened warriors. But the next time around the outcome could be different.

The bigger picture is also one which gives me a great deal of concern. The Syrians, with Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian help, have freed Deir ez-Zor and have crossed the Euphrates river and are moving further East. In plain English this means that the US and Daesh have lost the war and that the last region of Syrian from which the AngloZionists can hope to partition the country (their current “plan B”) and establish a permanent US military presence is now threatened by the Syrian advance. The distance between the US forces currently deployed in northeastern Syria and Syrian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian forces is becoming shorter and shorter each day. I can just imagine how, say, Iranian or Hezbollah forces which are already “smelling” the nearby presence of US forces are drooling with hunger for the moment they will finally be able to get their hands on their old and most hated foe. I feel sincerely sorry for the first US unit to make contact with the Iranians or Hezbollah forces.

Right now the Americans are hiding behind the Kurds, but sooner or later the Iranians or Hezbollah will find them. As for the Kurds, their situation in Syria is precarious, to put it mildly: they are surrounded on all sides by the Turks, the Syrians and the Iranians and their only more or less stable zone of control is in Iraq. The Americans understand that perfectly, hence their desperate attempts to stop the Syrians.

This is a very dangerous situation: even though CENTCOM and NATO are by far the “biggest guys on the block”, in Syria the Americans are cornered, their corner is shrinking fast and it remains entirely unclear how this process can be stopped. Hence the attack on the de-confliction zone we just witnessed.

Click to follow
The Independent Online
kremlin-flag.jpg
The Kremlin Rex
A Russian senator has claimed that the West is compiling biological material on Russians in scenario-planning for a biological attack on the country.

Frants Klintsevich, Deputy Chairman of the upper house’s defence sub-committee, made the comments on Monday following similarly alarmist claims by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At a session of the Presidential Council for Human Rights, Mr Putin had suggested “certain forces” were compiling biological profiles of the nation. He said the work was being done “purposefully and professionally,” and profiles were being made for various ethnic groups across the country.

READ MORE
Navalny: Don't be fooled, I'm still Russia's best hope to oust Putin
Senator Klintsevich claimed the President's words were “not accidental” and represented a step change in hostile activity from the West.

“It is no secret that different ethnic groups react to biological weapons in different ways,” he wrote in Facebook. “This is why the West is meticulously collecting material all across the country.”

Wives & Girlfriends Of 20 Richest Men In The World
Appurse
You'll Never Want To Get Out Of Bed After Sleeping On An Adjustable Mattress
New Mattresses | Sponsored Links
Learn How To Donate Your Car To Charity Today
Car Donation | Sponsored Links
Find Top LASIK Doctors In Birmingham
LASIK | Sponsored Links
We Can Guess Your Education Level With This Quiz
DirectExpose
by Taboola Sponsored Links
Lower ranking politicians frequently come out with hyperbolic statements that they believe the Kremlin wants them to hear. Many do so in an effort to improve their political standing. Anti-Western sentiment is also typical in the months leading up to presidential elections. These are due to take place next March.

For the time being, biological attacks on Russians are more likely to come from traditional sources.

World news in pictures
33
show all
Earlier this month, Health Minister Veronika Skvortsova warned a major flu epidemic was on its way to the capital city, Moscow. Meanwhile, Russia remains a world leader in HIV infection rates, which for the past five years have grown 10 percent annually._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Short (6 minutes) but sweet video clip which many of us would agree with, and have been saying for yonks re the NWO:
‘Putin: New World Order Are in Final Stages Of Their European Master-Plan’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYNTcAezDl0_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

LONDON - December 2017: UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson accused Russia of "trying to damage British interests" amid concern that relations with the Kremlin have reached an all-time low, Daily Mail reported on Saturday.

Williamson, who was promoted to the Cabinet last month, told Daily Mail "Russia are fighting a war against Britain on so many different levels. We are in a cool war but one where Russia is incredibly active in trying to do damage to British interests.

"We should not be complacent about that. We need to make sure our Armed Forces have the resources to deal with it."

He said that "warfare is changing" and Russia would use "any means in which to undermine British and Western interests".

His latest broadside, among the strongest comments on Russia from the UK government in years, came after British Prime Minister Theresa May last month accused Moscow of spreading fake news and interfering in Brexit European elections._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

by Tyler DurdenFri, 02/02/2018 - 20:10
The Trump administration will continue much of the Obama administration's nuclear weapons policy - with the addition of a much more aggressive stance towards Russia, according to the results of a year-long, 74-page "Nuclear Posture Review" (NPR) conducted by the Department of Defense.

The administration's view is that Russian policies and actions are fraught with potential for miscalculation leading to an uncontrolled escalation of conflict in Europe. It specifically points to a Russian doctrine known as "escalate to de-escalate," in which Moscow would use or threaten to use smaller-yield nuclear weapons in a limited, conventional conflict in Europe in the belief that doing so would compel the U.S. and NATO to back down, according to AP.

"Recent Russian statements on this evolving nuclear weapons doctrine appear to lower the threshold for Moscow's first-use of nuclear weapons," reads the report. Of note, "Russia" is mentioned 14 times in the document.

The United States and Russia have in the past maintained strategic dialogues to manage nuclear competition and nuclear risks. Given Russian actions, including its occupation of Crimea, this constructive engagement has declined substantially. We look forward to conditions that would once again allow for transparent and constructive engagement with Russia.

...this review candidly addresses the challenges posed by Russian, Chinese, and other states strategic policies, programs, and capabilities, particularly nuclear.

In order to address Moscow's more liberal policy on the use of nukes, the Trump administration has two solutions; 1) modify a "small number" of existing ICBMs carried by Trident strategic submarines with smaller-yield nuclear warheads, and 2) "in the longer term," develop a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile - a weapon that existed during the Cold War but was retired in 2011 by the Obama administration.

The rest of the Nuclear Posture Review falls mostly in line with the previous administration's stance, and does not call for any net increase in strategic nuclear weapons.

The Trump administration concluded that the U.S. should largely follow its predecessor's blueprint for modernizing the nuclear arsenal, including new bomber aircraft, submarines and land-based missiles. It also endorsed adhering to existing arms control agreements, including the New START treaty that limits the United States and Russia each to 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads on a maximum of 700 deployed launchers. -NY Daily News

We can't wait to hear how Democrats spin this. Perhaps they'll say Putin is so sneaky that he got his "puppet" Trump to beef up US nuclear defenses against Moscow!

*****

Statement by President Donald J. Trump on the Nuclear Posture Review:

On January 27, 2017, in one of my first acts in office, I directed Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis to conduct a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). After a year of thorough analysis and careful deliberations across our government, today, my Administration is announcing the conclusions of this review. These conclusions are grounded in a realistic assessment of the global security environment, the need to deter the use of the most destructive weapons on earth, and our Nations long-standing commitment to nuclear non-proliferation.

Over the past decade, despite United States efforts to reduce the roles and numbers of nuclear weapons, other nuclear nations grew their stockpiles, increased the prominence of nuclear weapons in their security strategies, and - in some cases - pursued the development of new nuclear capabilities to threaten other nations. Meanwhile, successive United States administrations deferred much-needed modernization of our nuclear weapons, infrastructure, and delivery systems.

The 2018 NPR addresses these challenges. It describes the roles nuclear weapons play in our national security strategy. The strategy is tailored and flexible to address the wide array of threats in the 21st century. It pursues modernization of our nuclear command, control, and communications, all three legs of our triad, our dual capable aircraft, and our nuclear infrastructure. The strategy develops capabilities aimed at making use of nuclear weapons less likely. It enhances deterrence of strategic attacks against our Nation, and our allies and partners, that may not come in the form of nuclear weapons. And, importantly, it reaffirms our commitment to arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, maintains the moratorium on nuclear testing, and commits to improving efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to nuclear terrorism._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

'..“We are greatly concerned by some parts of the new nuclear posture, which reduces the benchmark for the use of nuclear weapons. Whatever soothing words one may try to use behind closed doors, we can read what was written. And it says that these weapons can be used in response to a conventional attack or even a cyber-threat,” he said.

“Our nuclear doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons only in response to a nuclear attack or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against her or her allies, or a conventional attack against us that threatens the very existence of the state.”

“It is my duty to state this: Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our country. The response will be instant and with all the relevant consequences,” Putin warned....'

And the Yanks, Israel, UK and assorted cronies better listen up good - Putin is a chess player, not a poker player._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

“We are greatly concerned by some parts of the [Pentagon's] new nuclear posture, which reduces the benchmark for the use of nuclear weapons. Whatever soothing words one may try to use behind closed doors, we can read what was written. And it says that these weapons can be used in response to a conventional attack... or even a cyber-threat,” he said.
“Our nuclear doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons only in response to a nuclear attack or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against her or her allies, or a conventional attack against us that threatens the very existence of the state.”
“It is my duty to state this: Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our country. The response will be instant and with all the relevant consequences,” Putin warned.
Putin on new US nuclear stance: If attacked, Russia will use nukes
https://www.rt.com/news/420171-nukes-us-russia-attack/
Published time: 1 Mar, 2018 11:06 Edited time: 1 Mar, 2018 15:07
Get short URL
Putin on new US nuclear stance: If attacked, Russia will use nukes

The new US nuclear posture allows a nuclear strike in response to a conventional attack. President Vladimir Putin said Russia, if attacked with nuclear weapons, would not hesitate to respond in kind.

“We are greatly concerned by some parts of the new nuclear posture, which reduces the benchmark for the use of nuclear weapons. Whatever soothing words one may try to use behind closed doors, we can read what was written. And it says that these weapons can be used in response to a conventional attack or even a cyber-threat,” he said.

“Our nuclear doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons only in response to a nuclear attack or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against her or her allies, or a conventional attack against us that threatens the very existence of the state.”

“It is my duty to state this: Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our country. The response will be instant and with all the relevant consequences,” Putin warned.

Russia has developed a number of advanced weapons systems, including a nuclear-powered cruise missile, which make all US capabilities aimed at undermining the Russian nuclear deterrent obsolete, President Vladimir Putin announced.
TrendsVladimir Putin

The Russian leader made the comments during his state of the nation address on Wednesday. While the first part of the address was a straightforward description of domestic goals and achievements, the second became a defiant challenge to the US. Putin announced that Russia has successfully developed several new weapons systems, which basically negate American anti-ballistic missile capabilities.

The Russian president accused the US of arrogance, saying that it thought that Russia would not be able to recover anytime soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and that its interests can simply be ignored. One particular move – the withdrawal by George W Bush from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002 – resulted in Russia being increasingly surrounded by American assets, which undermined the country’s nuclear deterrence.

“In the end, if we did nothing, this would render the Russian nuclear potential worthless,” Putin said. “They could simply intercept all of it.”

Without a nuclear deterrent, Russia would be exposed to US military pressure and would not be able to pursue a sovereign policy, Putin said. The president warned as early as in 2004 that Russia would not sit idle and that it would respond to this threat by developing new weapons systems.
Russia's new 'big stick'

Russia has now done this, according to Putin, who went on to present a number of new systems, some of which don’t yet have names, and which are all meant to counter current and future ABM systems. His speech was accompanied by a series of video clips showing those new systems, partially as footage of tests and partially as computer-generated images showing their capabilities.

One system is the new Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) called Sarmat, or RS-28. It’s already well-known, but Putin stressed that its increased range allows the missile to reach US territory from Russia via a South Pole route. The US has dozens of interceptor missiles deployed in Alaska on the presumption that Russia’s ICBMs would approach from that direction, which would not be the case with Sarmat.

In fact, the Soviet Union had a missile that could approach the US from any direction. It was not a regular ballistic missile but rather one that put the warhead into low-earth orbit. The warhead would then deorbit when close to its target, thanks to its own engines. However, the R-36orb missiles were scrapped as part of nuclear reduction process.

Putin then went on to weapons systems that were not previously known to the public. One is a yet-to-be-named cruise missile with an almost unlimited range.

According to Putin, Russia successfully tested a nuclear-propelled cruise missile at the end of 2017. It is now developing a new class of strategic weapons, he added.

The idea of a nuclear-powered projectile is hardly new. The US tried to develop one as part of Project Pluto in the early 1960s, but abandoned it since strategic missiles with chemical propellants proved to be a more viable alternative. Russia has reportedly made a breakthrough in this technology, becoming the first nation to bring it to maturity.

Putin also said that miniaturization of a nuclear reactor gave Russia another advanced weapons system in the form of a high-endurance underwater drone. The drone can dive “really very deep” and travel between continents at a speed that is several times higher than that of a submarine, a modern torpedo or even a surface ship, he said.

In December 2017, Russia completed the trials of a nuclear reactor which gives the drones such capabilities. The reactor is “100 times smaller” than those used by nuclear-propelled submarines and generates more power, Putin said. It can also reach its peak power 200 times faster than a conventional nuclear power plant.

The video shown for this weapon system didn’t include any actual test, but presumably the claimed miniaturization of a nuclear reactor, which was used for the cruise missile, can also work for a watercraft.

Putin then showcased two variants of a hypersonic weapons systems already developed by Russia. One is an air-launched vehicle that is already deployed in southern Russia for test combat duty. The projectile travels at a speed of Mach-10 and has a range of 2,000km (1,240 miles). The weapon, which is called Kinzhal (“dagger” in Russian) is available in conventional and nuclear forms, Putin said. A video shown to the audience included the moment the weapon was deployed by a fighter jet and the fire from its engine.

Another weapon that is being developed, but which was not shown being tested because its appearance is classified, according to Putin, is a hypersonic glider warhead deployed from space. Russia first tested one back in 2004 and has made significant progress since, the president said. The glider can fly in the atmosphere at speeds of over Mach-20 and can withstand a heat of up to 2,000C (3,632F) generated by air fiction. The system is in series production and is called Avangard (“advance guard” in Russian).

The last weapon system showcased by Putin during his speech was a combat laser, which he said Russia had started to deploy last year. A small video clip showed what presumably is an anti-aircraft laser system, but no test footage was shown.
'Speaking softly': Russia wants negotiations, not confrontation

Putin stressed that Russia would not need all these new weapons if its legitimate concerns had not been ignored by the US and its allies. “Nobody wanted to talk with us on the core of the problem. Nobody listened to us. Now you listen!” he said.

He suggested that the US abandon its costly and inefficient hostile plans towards Russia and start negotiating a security arrangement which would take Moscow’s interests into account.

“To those who for the last 15 years have been trying to fan an arms race, achieve unilateral advantage against Russia, impose sanctions, which are illegal from the standpoint of international law and are aimed at holding back the development of our country, including in the military area, I have this to say: All the things you were trying to prevent through your policies have already happened. You have failed to hold Russia back,” Putin said.

“You now have to acknowledge this reality, confirm that everything I said is no bluff – which it isn’t – think for some time, send into retirement the people stuck in the past and incapable of looking into the future, [and] stop rocking the boat that we all ride in and which is called planet Earth,” he said. Russia would be responsive if talked to as an equal partner, Putin added.

--
From South America, where payment must be made with subtlety, the Bormann organization has made a substantial contribution. It has drawn many of the brightest Jewish businessmen into a participatory role in the development of many of its corporations, and many of these Jews share their prosperity most generously with Israel. If their proposals are sound, they are even provided with a specially dispensed venture capital fund. I spoke with one Jewish businessmen in Hartford, Connecticut. He had arrived there quite unknown several years before our conversation, but with Bormann money as his leverage. Today he is more than a millionaire, a quiet leader in the community with a certain share of his profits earmarked as always for his venture capital benefactors. This has taken place in many other instances across America and demonstrates how Bormann’s people operate in the contemporary commercial world, in contrast to the fanciful nonsense with which Nazis are described in so much “literature.”

Top Russian officials have threatened to retaliate with force if President Donald Trump orders an attack that could endanger the lives of its soldiers stationed there in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's campaign against rebels and jihadis near Damascus.

Army General Valery Gerasimov warned on Tuesday that the U.S. was preparing to launch raids against Moscow's ally, the Syrian government, as it attempted to clear bastion of jihadis and rebels—some of which were once backed by the West—in the suburbs of the capital city of Damascus. The leading military official claimed that the U.S. would strike under the false pretense of a chemical weapon attack—a tactic that Russia has denied the Syrian military utilizes—and vowed to fight back.

Related: ISIS Tries to Take Back Iraq As U.S. Allies Switch Sides in Syria

"In the event of a threat to our military servicemen’s lives, Russia’s Armed Forces will take retaliatory measures to target both the missiles and their delivery vehicles," Gerasimov said, according to the state-run Tass Russian News Agency.

GettyImages-931207138
GettyImages-931207138
Russian military police members stand guard at the Al-Wafideen checkpoint on the outskirts of the Syrian capital Damascus neighboring the rebel-held eastern Ghouta enclave on March 13, 2018, awaiting any civilians evacuating from the area. A U.S> strike on Syrian troops and their allies could endanger Russian personnel, prompting what Moscow officials said would be a retaliation. LOUAI BESHARA/AFP/Getty Images

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has railed against the Syrian government's recently intensified campaign to retake the insurgent-held district of eastern Ghouta outside Damascus, accusing Syria and its Russian and Iranian allies of mounting civilian casualties. As a fellow permanent U.N. Security Council member, Russia has vetoed a number of resolutions targeting Assad's government and has accused the insurgents of shelling nearby Damascus city. Haley also blamed Russia for breaking a 30-day ceasefire agreement reached earlier this month.

"When the international community consistently fails to act, there are times when states are compelled to take their own action," Haley told the U.N. Security Council on Monday, citing the current situation in eastern Ghouta as an example of this, as The Hill reported.

"We warn any nation determined to impose its will through chemical attacks and inhuman suffering, but most especially the outlaw Syrian regime, the United States remains prepared to act if we must," she added. "It is not a path we prefer. But it is a path we have demonstrated we will take, and we are prepared to take again."

Russia has taken this as a sign that the U.S. was planning to attack Syrian military forces as it did in April, following charges that the Syrian airforce used sarin gas in the northwestern rebel-held district of Idlib, something Russia and Syria have denied. Less than 72 hours after the U.S. accused Syria of being behind the attack, Trump ordered a cruise missile strike from Navy warships in the Mediterranean.

In a disagreement that has become characteristic of U.S. and Russian involvement in Syria, Washington claimed that it had used a previously established de-confliction line to warn Russia of the attack. But Moscow denied this, saying Russian personnel at the targeted Al-Shayrat air base were put at risk.

RTX34HHA
RTX34HHA
Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Porter launches Tomahawk cruise missiles against the Al-Shayrat air base in Syria, April 7, 2017. The attack came less than three days after a chemical attack that Russia and Syria denied conducting in the rebel-held province of Idlib. Ford Williams/U.S. Navy/REUTERS

In response to Haley's warning at the U.N., the Russian Foreign Ministry also pledged a forceful response to any U.S. attack that threatened Russian troops who were stationed throughout Syrian military frontlines near Damascus. Accusing a "belligerent" Haley of promoting "criminal actions" in Syria, the ministry said "in this case, required retaliatory measures will be taken," Tass reported.

"If a new strike of this kind takes place, the consequences will be very serious," Russia Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in a separate statement also carried by Tass.

Most popular: Passengers Blame United Airlines Flight Attendant for Death of 10-Month-Old Puppy

"Mrs. Haley should understand that it is one thing to irresponsibly exploit the microphone in the U.N. Security Council and it is another thing when both the Russian and American militaries have communication channels and it is clearly stated via these channels what can be done and what must not be done," he added.

Russia intervened in Syria in 2015 at Assad's request, helping him overcome a 2011 uprising sponsored by the West, Turkey and Gulf Arab states. As lines blurred between the mainstream Syrian opposition and jihadis groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), the U.S. switched its focus from regime change to defeating ISIS via support for a mostly Kurdish coalition known as the Syrian Democratic Forces.

But Turkey, a U.S. ally and fellow NATO Western military alliance member, has objected to Washington's support for Kurdish militias, which Ankara accused of harboring ties to the militant Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). A joint Turkish and Syrian rebel attack on the Kurdish enclave of Afrin has drawn Kurdish fighters away from the U.S.-led coalition fight against ISIS and into an alliance with Assad against Turkey.

RTS1NEQL
RTS1NEQL
Two maps show areas of control in Syria as of January 8, 2018 and March 8, 2018. Turkey and its rebel allies have made gains against the Kurd-controlled enclave of Afrin, causing an exodus of Kurdish fighters from the U.S.-led coalition battle against ISIS in the east. Institute for the Study of War/Reuters

Responding to Russia's vow to strike back against potential U.S. military action in Syria, the U.S.-led coalition said its main focus was to fight ISIS, but that it shared Haley's opinion on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

"Coalition officials regularly engage their Russian counterparts via established ground and air deconfliction lines, with the goal of ensuring mutual understanding and preventing escalations in tension. Our interactions with Russian officials have been professional and effective, proving the value of the deconfliction effort," coalition spokesman Colonel Thomas Veale said in a statement sent to Newsweek.

"Although the Coalition does not speak for the United States, we acknowledge the U.S. government's stance, echoed by our Coalition and NATO partners, that the use of chemical weapons use is unacceptable," he added.

Veale said the coalition would to continue backing the remaining, mostly Arab fighters of the Syrian Democratic Forces still battling ISIS in eastern Syria. These forces faced an "operational pause" due to the departure of Kurdish fighters, as well as recent tensions between pro-Syrian government forces that erupted into deadly violence, including the deaths of Russian citizens from U.S. airstrikes last month._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Russia has developed and deployed some pretty devastating weaponry, which SHOULD make the Western warmongers think twice, but deosn't seem to have sunk in to their blood-thirsty ans world domination bonces._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'...I am now deeply embarrassed for the West. And very, very afraid.
All I see today is a submissive herd lead by true, bona fide, psychopaths (in a clinical sense of the word)
And that is not the worst thing.
The worst thing is the deafening silence, the way everybody just looks away, pretends like “ain’t my business” or, worse, actually takes all this grotesque spectacle seriously. What the * is wrong with you people?! Have you all been turned into zombies?! WAKE UP!!!!!!!....'

'....So I ask this simple question: do you really want to go to war against a fully united nuclear Russia?

You think that this is hyperbole?
Think again.
The truth is that the situation today is infinitely worse than the Cuban missile crisis. First, during the Cuban missile crisis there were rational people on both side. Today there is NOT ONE SINGLE RATIONAL PERSON LEFT IN A POSITION OF POWER IN THE USA. Not ONE! Second, during the Cuban missile crisis all the new was reporting on was the crisis, the entire planet felt like we were standing at the edge of the abyss.
Today nobody seems to be aware that we are about to go to war, possibly a thermonuclear war, where casualties will be counted in the hundreds of millions.
All because of what?
Because the people of the West have accepted, or don’t even know, that they are ruled by an ugly gang of ignorant, arrogant psychopaths.....'

'....I was born in a Russian military family and I studied Russian and Soviet military affairs all my life. I can absolutely promise you this, please don’t doubt it for one second: Russia will not back down and, if cornered, she will wipe out your entire civilization. The Russians really don’t want war, they fear it (as they should!) and they will do everything to avoid it. But if attacked then expect a response of absolutely devastating violence. Don’t take it from me, take it from Putin who clearly said so himself and who, at least on that issue, is supported by about 95% of the population. From the Eastern Crusades to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, enough is enough, and the Russians will not take one more western attack, especially not one backed by nuclear firepower. Again, please ponder Putin’s words very, very carefully: “what need would we have a world if there is no Russia?“...'

'...Yeah, I know, all they did is expel some diplomats. And the Russians will do the same. So what? But that’s missing the point!

LOOK NOT WHERE WE ARE BUT WHERE WE ARE HEADING!!

You can get 200,000 anti–gun (sigh, rolleyes) protesters in DC but NOBODY AT ALL ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR?!
What is wrong with you people?!
What happened to the West where I was born in in 1963?
My God, is this really the end of it all?
Am I the only one who sees this slow-motion train-wreck taking us all over the precipice?.....'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

The thought that comes to me to symbolize this geopolitical test of strength between Russia and the West is this: An image--seen from a far away distance--of two muscular gladiators, side by side, symbolizing the West and Russia, standing in the center of the Colliseum's arena, seen from a distance. Upon closer inspection and testing, we see one's muscles are the product artificial platic surgery with silicon implants pretending strength; while the other's muscle's have been grown naturally, from powerful tests and exertions and discipline.

In other words, America's artificial "military industrial complex" has created weapons and military missions for the purposes of vanity and empty lies, and decayed the spirit of truth and purity in the military oath; while the Russian people have sought leaders from among their best citizens, and looked to the development of the military to only protect their territory and culture and people--and not to enrich themselves. That is the fundamental difference, and it defines those who nourish their body politic with either integrity, or insanity.

Western countries are reportedly planning to bypass Russia’s veto at the UN security council over Syria by referring concerns about the suspected use of chemical weapons to the UN general assembly.

Russia has used its veto 12 times to block UN action targeting the regime of its ally, Bashar al-Assad.

In November, it used its veto to block the extension of a UN mechanism to attribute responsibility for chemical weapons attacks.

Western nations blamed the Syrian government for a poison gas attack on the town of Douma earlier this month, which killed dozens of people and led the US, Britain and France to launch 105 missiles targeting chemical weapons facilities in retaliation.

The Syrian regime and Russia deny involvement or the use of chemical weapons.
Douma chemical attack: Syria war in pictures

13 show all

Western officials are reportedly supporting the idea of turning to a rarely used diplomatic route in order to clear the impasse, known as “uniting for peace”, which would allow nine members of the security council to refer their concerns to a vote at the general assembly, bypassing Russia’s veto.

A two-thirds majority in the general assembly would then be required to agree upon an attribution mechanism.

“The Russian veto need not be the end of efforts for collective action by the UN,” Ian Martin, a human rights activist and former UN official, told The Guardian.

“The responsibility of asserting accountability for the use of chemical weapons, and for bringing an end to the horrors of the Syrian conflict, rests with the world community as a whole.”
syria-chemical-attack.jpg
A toddler needs oxygen following a suspected poison gas attack in Douma (Syrian Civil Defence/White Helmets via AP)

It comes as the United Nations special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, stressed that the latest territorial gains by the Syrian regime and its allies have not brought peace any closer to the country.

“We’re seeing in last few weeks, days ... that military gains, territorial gains and military escalation does not bring a political solution, has not brought any change. On the contrary,” he said.
Syria air strikes: US, UK and France joint military action

21 show all

On Monday, foreign ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) leading industrialised nations united to condemn Russia for what they said was ”a pattern of irresponsible and destabilising” behaviour.
Read more

They urged Moscow to help resolve the conflict in Syria and agreed to create a working group to study the Kremlin’s “malign behaviour”.

John Sullivan, the acting US secretary of state, called on Moscow to stop creating impediments to peace in Syria, and to play a role in ending the seven-year-long conflict.

“Russia must be a constructive partner in Syria or will be held accountable,” he said.

Speaking to reporters on the margins of the meeting, foreign secretary Boris Johnson said G7 ministers had agreed on the need to be vigilant about Russia.

“What we decided ... was that we were going to set up a G7 group that would look at Russian malign behaviour in all its manifestations – whether it’s cyber warfare, whether it’s disinformation, assassination attempts, whatever it happens to be, and collectively try to call it out.”

German’s foreign minister, Heiko Maas, said the meeting established “again that there will be no political solution in Syria without Russia ... and that Russia has to contribute its share to such a solution.”

Why the f*ck doesn't Russia broadcast in all available forums Roland Dumas' exposure of high British officials telling him they were going to overthrow Assad 'with the use of mercenaries'?
And Wesley Clark's '7 governments in 5 years'?
Why do they not remind, or inform, the world about the 'Operation Gladio' abominations? False flag massacres, blamed on the Left-wing?
They are obviously not thick, so, for f*ck sake, bring it on (I'm sure Russian intel reads this Forum).
Apart from which, I personally delivered a letter to the Russian Federation Embassy stating approx. the same._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'In June last year President Putin banned Jacob Rothschild and his New World Order banking cartel family from entering Russian territory “under any circumstances,” and now, just over one year later, Putin has declared “total independence” from the global banking cartel and Rothschild international money lending organizations.

Declaring the achievement the “greatest gift” that can be given to future generations, Putin hosted a party in the Kremlin to celebrate the achievement.

“They said we couldn’t do it, they said we would be destroyed,” Putin told staff and senior associates. “Our future generations will be born without Rothschild chains around their wrists and ankles.”

“This is the greatest gift we can give them.”

Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin also spoke at the event and praised Putin’s achievement in driving the Rothschilds out of the country.

“They don’t go easily,” Kudrin said. “But we have proved it is possible.”

“The greatest legacy that can be passed on to your children and grandchildren is not money or other material things accumulated in life, but rather a legacy of freedom from enslavement.”

By making the final payment on all of the former Soviet republics debts to the world’s central banks – making Russia the only country to set itself free from the tyrannical grip of the New World Order’s banking system – Putin has ensured future generations of Russians will not live in debt slavery to the {Khazarian} globalist cabal.

It is understood that the Rothschild banking racket was a noose tied around the neck of the Russian economy. Once the knot was tightened, the economy would struggle and choke.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have been major players in the global economic landscape ever since their creation in 1944.

These international banking organizations, which are privately controlled by the notorious Rothschild banking family, first pressure nations to deregulate their financial sector, allowing private banks to loot their economies.....'

That could explain why the Skripal and Douma 'False Flag' hoaxes occured at this juncture, and why Western relations with Russia are at an all-time low.
JFK, Iraq and Libya tried it - let's hope Russia succeeds without WWIII._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

April 05th, 2018 By Michael T. Klare
Think of it as the most momentous military planning on Earth right now.

Who’s even paying attention, given the eternal changing of the guard at the White House, as well as the latest in tweets, sexual revelations, and investigations of every sort? And yet it increasingly looks as if, thanks to current Pentagon planning, a twenty-first-century version of the Cold War (with dangerous new twists) has begun and hardly anyone has even noticed.

In 2006, when the Department of Defense spelled out its future security role, it saw only one overriding mission: its “Long War” against international terrorism. “With its allies and partners, the United States must be prepared to wage this war in many locations simultaneously and for some years to come,” the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review explained that year.

Twelve years later, the Pentagon has officially announced that that long war is drawing to a close — even though at least seven counterinsurgency conflicts still rage across the Greater Middle East and Africa — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.

“Great power competition, not terrorism, has emerged as the central challenge to U.S. security and prosperity,” claimed Pentagon Comptroller David Norquist while releasing the Pentagon’s $686 billion budget request in January. “It is increasingly apparent that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian values and, in the process, replace the free and open order that has enabled global security and prosperity since World War II.”

Of course, just how committed President Trump is to the preservation of that “free and open order” remains questionable given his determination to scuttle international treaties and ignite a global trade war. Similarly, whether China and Russia truly seek to undermine the existing world order or simply make it less American-centric is a question that deserves close attention, just not today.

The reason is simple enough. The screaming headline you should have seen in any paper (but haven’t) is this: the U.S. military has made up its mind about the future. It has committed itself and the nation to a three-front geopolitical struggle to resist Chinese and Russian advances in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

Important as this strategic shift may be, you won’t hear about it from the president, a man lacking the attention span necessary for such long-range strategic thinking and one who views Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping as “frenemies” rather than die-hard adversaries. To fully appreciate the momentous changes occurring in U.S. military planning, it’s necessary to take a deep dive into the world of Pentagon scripture: budget documents and the annual “posture statements” of regional commanders already overseeing the implementation of that just-born three-front strategy.

The New Geopolitical Chessboard

This renewed emphasis on China and Russia in U.S. military planning reflects the way top military officials are now reassessing the global strategic equation, a process that began long before Donald Trump entered the White House. Although after 9/11, senior commanders fully embraced the “long war against terror” approach to the world, their enthusiasm for endless counterterror operations leading essentially nowhere in remote and sometimes strategically unimportant places began to wane in recent years as they watched China and Russia modernizing their military forces and using them to intimidate neighbors.

While the long war against terror did fuel a vast, ongoing expansion of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Forces (SOF) — now a secretive army of 70,000 nestled inside the larger military establishment — it provided surprisingly little purpose or real work for the military’s “heavy metal” units: the Army’s tank brigades, the Navy’s carrier battle groups, the Air Force’s bomber squadrons, and so forth. Yes, the Air Force in particular has played a major supporting role in recent operations in Iraq and Syria, but the regular military has largely been sidelined there and elsewhere by lightly equipped SOF forces and drones.

Planning for a “real war” against a “peer competitor” (one with forces and weaponry resembling our own) was until recently given far lower priority than the country’s never-ending conflicts across the Greater Middle East and Africa. This alarmed and even angered those in the regular military whose moment, it seems, has now finally arrived.

“Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding,” the Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy declares. “We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order” — a decline officially attributed for the first time not to al-Qaeda and ISIS, but to the aggressive behavior of China and Russia. Iran and North Korea are also identified as major threats, but of a distinctly secondary nature compared to the menace posed by the two great-power competitors.

Unsurprisingly enough, this shift will require not only greater spending on costly, high-tech military hardware but also a redrawing of the global strategic map to favor the regular military. During the long war on terror, geography and boundaries appeared less important, given that terrorist cells seemed capable of operating anyplace where order was breaking down. The U.S. military, convinced that it had to be equally agile, readied itself to deploy (often Special Operations forces) to remote battlefields across the planet, borders be damned.

On the new geopolitical map, however, America faces well-armed adversaries with every intention of protecting their borders, so U.S. forces are now being arrayed along an updated version of an older, more familiar three-front line of confrontation.

In Asia, the U.S. and its key allies (South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia) are to face China across a line extending from the Korean peninsula to the waters of the East and South China Seas and the Indian Ocean. In Europe, the U.S. and its NATO allies will do the same for Russia on a front extending from Scandinavia and the Baltic Republics south to Romania and then east across the Black Sea to the Caucasus. Between these two theaters of contention lies the ever-turbulent Greater Middle East, with the United States and its two crucial allies there, Israel and Saudi Arabia, facing a Russian foothold in Syria and an increasingly assertive Iran, itself drawing closer to China and Russia.

From the Pentagon’s perspective, this is to be the defining strategic global map for the foreseeable future. Expect most upcoming major military investments and initiatives to focus on bolstering U.S. naval, air, and ground strength on its side of these lines, as well as on targeting Sino-Russian vulnerabilities across them.

There’s no better way to appreciate the dynamics of this altered strategic outlook than to dip into the annual “posture statements” of the heads of the Pentagon’s “unified combatant commands,” or combined Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Corps headquarters, covering the territories surrounding China and Russia: Pacific Command (PACOM), with responsibility for all U.S. forces in Asia; European Command (EUCOM), covering U.S. forces from Scandinavia to the Caucasus; and Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees the Middle East and Central Asia, where so many of the country’s counterterror wars are still underway.

The senior commanders of these meta-organizations are the most powerful U.S. officials in their “areas of responsibility” (AORs), exercising far more clout than any American ambassador stationed in the region (and often local heads of state as well). That makes their statements and the shopping lists of weaponry that invariably go with them of real significance for anyone who wants to grasp the Pentagon’s vision of America’s global military future.

The Indo-Pacific Front
South Korea and U.S. warships participate in their joint military drill Foal Eagle in South Korea's West sea, March 17, 2013. (AP/South Korea Navy)
South Korea and U.S. warships participate in their joint military drill Foal Eagle in South Korea’s West sea, March 17, 2013. (AP/South Korea Navy)
Commanding PACOM is Admiral Harry Harris Jr., a long-time naval aviator. In his annual posture statement, delivered to the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 15th, Harris painted a grim picture of America’s strategic position in the Asia-Pacific region.

In addition to the dangers posed by a nuclear-armed North Korea, he argued, China was emerging as a formidable threat to America’s vital interests. “The People’s Liberation Army’s rapid evolution into a modern, high-tech fighting force continues to be both impressive and concerning,” he asserted. “PLA capabilities are progressing faster than any other nation in the world, benefitting from robust resourcing and prioritization.”

Most threatening, in his view, is Chinese progress in developing intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) and advanced warships. Such missiles, he explained, could strike U.S. bases in Japan or on the island of Guam, while the expanding Chinese navy could challenge the U.S. Navy in seas off China’s coast and someday perhaps America’s command of the western Pacific. “If this [shipbuilding] program continues,” he said, “China will surpass Russia as the world’s second largest navy by 2020, when measured in terms of submarines and frigate-class ships or larger.”

To counter such developments and contain Chinese influence requires, of course, spending yet more taxpayer dollars on advanced weapons systems, especially precision-guided missiles. Admiral Harris called for vastly increasing investment in such weaponry in order to overpower current and future Chinese capabilities and ensure U.S. military dominance of China’s air and sea space. “In order to deter potential adversaries in the Indo-Pacific,” he declared, “we must build a more lethal force by investing in critical capabilities and harnessing innovation.”

His budgetary wish list was impressive. Above all, he spoke with great enthusiasm about new generations of aircraft and missiles — what are called, in Pentagonese, “anti-access/area-denial” systems — capable of striking Chinese IRBM batteries and other weapons systems intended to keep American forces safely away from Chinese territory.

He also hinted that he wouldn’t mind having new nuclear-armed missiles for this purpose — missiles, he suggested, that could be launched from ships and planes and so would skirt the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, to which the U.S. is a signatory and which bans land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles. (To give you a feel for the arcane language of Pentagon nuclear cognoscenti, here’s how he put it: “We must continue to expand Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty-compliant theater strike capabilities to effectively counter adversary anti-access/area-denial [A2/AD] capabilities and force preservation tactics.”)

Finally, to further strengthen the U.S. defense line in the region, Harris called for enhanced military ties with various allies and partners, including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia. PACOM’s goal, he stated, is to “maintain a network of like-minded allies and partners to cultivate principled security networks, which reinforce the free and open international order.” Ideally, he added, this network will eventually encompass India, further extending the encirclement of China.

The European Theater
U.S. Army vehicles cross the Polish border in Olszyna, Poland, Thursday, Jan. 12, 2017 heading for their new base in Zagan. (AP/Czarek Sokolowski)
U.S. Army vehicles cross the Polish border in Olszyna, Poland, Thursday, Jan. 12, 2017 heading for their new base in Zagan. (AP/Czarek Sokolowski)
A similarly embattled future, even if populated by different actors in a different landscape, was offered by Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of EUCOM, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services on March 8th.

For him, Russia is the other China. As he put it in a bone-chilling description, “Russia seeks to change the international order, fracture NATO, and undermine U.S. leadership in order to protect its regime, reassert dominance over its neighbors, and achieve greater influence around the globe… Russia has demonstrated its willingness and capability to intervene in countries along its periphery and to project power — especially in the Middle East.”

This, needless to say, is not the outlook we’re hearing from President Trump, who has long appeared reluctant to criticize Vladimir Putin or paint Russia as a full-fledged adversary. For American military and intelligence officials, however, Russia unquestionably poses the preeminent threat to U.S. security interests in Europe. It is now being spoken of in a fashion that should bring back memories of the Cold War era. “Our highest strategic priority,” Scaparrotti insisted, “is to deter Russia from engaging in further aggression and exercising malign influence over our allies and partners. [To this end,] we are… updating our operational plans to provide military response options to defend our European allies against Russian aggression.”

The cutting edge of EUCOM’s anti-Russian drive is the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), a project President Obama initiated in 2014 following the Russian seizure of Crimea. Originally known as the European Reassurance Initiative, the EDI is intended to bolster U.S. and NATO forces deployed in the “front-line states” — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland — facing Russia on NATO’s “Eastern Front.” According to the Pentagon wish list submitted in February, some $6.5 billion are to be allocated to the EDI in 2019. Most of those funds will be used to stockpile munitions in the front-line states, enhance Air Force basing infrastructure, conduct increased joint military exercises with allied forces, and rotate additional U.S.-based forces into the region. In addition, some $200 million will be devoted to a Pentagon “advise, train, and equip” mission in Ukraine.

Like his counterpart in the Pacific theater, General Scaparrotti also turns out to have an expensive wish list of future weaponry, including advanced planes, missiles, and other high-tech weapons that, he claims, will counter modernizing Russian forces. In addition, recognizing Russia’s proficiency in cyberwarfare, he’s calling for a substantial investment in cyber technology and, like Admiral Harris, he cryptically hinted at the need for increased investment in nuclear forces of a sort that might be “usable” on a future European battlefield.

Between East and West: Central Command
Gen. Joseph Votel, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, right, gets a briefing on the USS Nimitz, from Lt. Cmdr. Vern Jensen, the aircraft handling officer for the ship, Aug. 24, 2017. The Nimitz is in the Persian Gulf, and fighter jets are flying off the aircraft to conduct strikes in Iraq and Syria. (AP/Lolita Baldor)
Gen. Joseph Votel, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, right, gets a briefing on the USS Nimitz, from Lt. Cmdr. Vern Jensen, the aircraft handling officer for the ship, Aug. 24, 2017. The Nimitz is in the Persian Gulf, and fighter jets are flying off the aircraft to conduct strikes in Iraq and Syria. (AP/Lolita Baldor)
Overseeing a startling range of war-on-terror conflicts in the vast, increasingly unstable region stretching from PACOM’s western boundary to EUCOM’s eastern one is the U.S. Central Command.

For most of its modern history, CENTCOM has been focused on counterterrorism and the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan in particular. Now, however, even as the previous long war continues, the Command is already beginning to position itself for a new Cold War-revisited version of perpetual struggle, a plan — to resurrect a dated term — to contain both China and Russia in the Greater Middle East.

In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, CENTCOM commander Army General Joseph Votel concentrated on the status of U.S. operations against ISIS in Syria and against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but he also affirmed that the containment of China and Russia has become an integral part of CENTCOM’s future strategic mission: “The recently published National Defense Strategy rightly identifies the resurgence of great power competition as our principal national security challenge and we see the effects of that competition throughout the region.”

Through its support of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and its efforts to gain influence with other key actors in the region, Russia, Votel claimed, is playing an increasingly conspicuous role in CENTCOM’s AOR. China is also seeking to enhance its geopolitical clout both economically and through a small but growing military presence. Of particular concern, Votel asserted, is the Chinese-managed port at Gwadar in Pakistan on the Indian Ocean and a new Chinese base in Djibouti on the Red Sea, across from Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Such facilities, he claimed, contribute to China’s “military posture and force projection” in CENTCOM’s AOR and are signals of a challenging future for the U.S. military.

Under such circumstances, Votel testified, it is incumbent upon CENTCOM to join PACOM and EUCOM in resisting Chinese and Russian assertiveness. “We have to be prepared to address these threats, not just in the areas in which they reside, but the areas in which they have influence.” Without providing any details, he went on to say, “We have developed… very good plans and processes for how we will do that.”

What that means is unclear at best. But despite Donald Trump’s campaign talk about a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria once ISIS and the Taliban are defeated, it seems increasingly clear that the U.S. military is preparing to station its forces in those (and possibly other) countries across CENTCOM’s region of responsibility indefinitely — fighting terrorism, of course, but also ensuring that there will be a permanent U.S. military presence in areas that could see intensifying geopolitical competition among the major powers.

An Invitation to Disaster
Russian army soldiers drive their tanks along the Red Square during a general rehearsal for the Victory Day military parade.
Russian army soldiers drive their tanks along the Red Square during a general rehearsal for the Victory Day military parade.
In relatively swift fashion, American military leaders have followed up their claim that the U.S. is in a new long war by sketching the outlines of a containment line that would stretch from the Korean Peninsula around Asia across the Middle East into parts of the former Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and finally to the Scandinavian countries. Under their plan, American military forces — reinforced by the armies of trusted allies — should garrison every segment of this line, a grandiose scheme to block hypothetical advances of Chinese and Russian influence that, in its global reach, should stagger the imagination. Much of future history could be shaped by such an outsized effort.

Questions for the future include whether this is either a sound strategic policy or truly sustainable. Attempting to contain China and Russia in such a manner will undoubtedly provoke countermoves, some undoubtedly difficult to resist, including cyber attacks and various kinds of economic warfare.

And if you imagined that a war on terror across huge swaths of the planet represented a significant global overreach for a single power, just wait. Maintaining large and heavily-equipped forces on three extended fronts will also prove exceedingly costly and will certainly conflict with domestic spending priorities and possibly provoke a divisive debate over the reinstatement of the draft.

However, the real question — unasked in Washington at the moment — is: Why pursue such a policy in the first place? Are there not other ways to manage the rise of China and Russia’s provocative behavior? What appears particularly worrisome about this three-front strategy is its immense capacity for confrontation, miscalculation, escalation, and finally actual war rather than simply grandiose war planning.

At multiple points along this globe-spanning line — the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, Syria, the South China Sea, and the East China Sea, to name just a few — forces from the U.S. and China or Russia are already in significant contact, often jostling for position in a potentially hostile manner. At any moment, one of these encounters could provoke a firefight leading to unintended escalation and, in the end, possibly all-out combat. From there, almost anything could happen, even the use of nuclear weapons.

Clearly, officials in Washington should be thinking hard before committing Americans to a strategy that will make this increasingly likely and could turn what is still long-war planning into an actual long war with deadly consequences.

Top Photo | U.S. Army M2A2 and M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicles are unloaded at a pier in Busan, South Korea, June 29, 2011. (AP/Yonhap, Kim Sun-ho)

Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1.

CENTCOM CHINA DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EUCOM PACOM PENTAGON RUSSIA_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum